ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Apprenticeships

Julie Elliott: What recent progress he has made on apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds.

Michael Gove: The number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships in 2011-12 was 129,900, down by 1.4% on the previous year.

Julie Elliott: With youth apprenticeships down on last year and the demise of the professional careers service as most people recognise it, what are the Government doing to ensure that young people receive the correct advice on starting apprenticeships, and, in particular, the route to higher level qualifications that some apprenticeships can lead to?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is quite right that we need to encourage all students to consider apprenticeships as a high quality alternative to the academic path. I commend the activity that Sunderland city council and Sunderland football club are taking to ensure that more young people in that great city consider apprenticeships as a viable role for the future. I should add that the recent diminution in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds taking apprenticeships was due significantly to the fact that we were reducing the number of low quality apprenticeships where the duration was shorter than a proper apprenticeship needs to be and the quality of tuition was less effective than a good apprenticeship needs to be, but there is still more to be done.

Andrew Bridgen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Department’s success in raising the profile of apprenticeships and making them a genuinely attractive alternative to higher education? Will he join me in congratulating East Midlands Housing Group on its apprenticeships in my constituency, and on being an apprentice team of the year finalist this year?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of construction and other sectors in helping to encourage more young people to consider apprenticeships. The Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—who sadly cannot be with us, Mr Speaker, because he is enjoying paternity leave—has I think done more than any other Minister, apart possibly from his immediate predecessor, to put apprenticeships on the map and to work with industry to raise the esteem in which vocational training is held.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State realise that many of us who believe passionately in apprenticeships are concerned that the people instructing apprentices should be of the highest order? What is this love affair between him and people who are unqualified working with apprenticeships and in schools?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree that those working with apprentices need to have either the best qualifications or the best experience in the relevant sector, which is why we implemented the recommendations of Alison Wolf’s report. We have allowed lecturers in further education, who are qualified in that sector but were not previously able to work in schools, to work in schools. We will also implement the Richard review, which once more puts employers in control of assuring the quality of vocational qualifications, so that anyone who secures an apprenticeship can be confident that it will lead to a satisfying job.

Tristram Hunt: With youth unemployment at the 1 million mark, one would have thought that Ministers would do all they could to get young people into training and jobs, so why have the Government overseen a 12% reduction in young apprenticeships in the past six months alone, alongside a £165 million departmental underspend? Where is the determination to fix this crisis? Rather than writing eight-page letters and trying to become the pen pal of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), should the Secretary of State not be focusing on some policy work?

Michael Gove: Rather than writing eloquent questions and reading them out with the rounded vowels of a public school educated champion of vocational education, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concentrate on what the Government have done. I also suggest that he refer back to the wonderful Westminster Hall debate, held with the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, in which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that under the previous Government vocational education was not good enough, that there were far too many low standard courses, and that the Wolf report and the Richard review have been the two best pieces of work on vocational and technical education undertaken in the past 25 years. If he looked back at what he said then, he would face a dilemma: does he eat the words he uttered in Westminster Hall, or does he acknowledge that the question he has just asked was nonsense from start to finish?

Rural Schools (Funding)

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the likely effect of his funding proposals on rural schools.

David Laws: Supporting successful rural schools is an important principle of our funding reforms. My Department has just concluded a review of funding arrangements for 2013-14, which included visits to North Yorkshire and several other rural authorities.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that the pupil premium has not worked its way through to rural schools in perhaps the way he had hoped, and will he join me in helping North Yorkshire council to put in place fairer funding for rural schools, particularly those with many service children?

David Laws: The pupil premium has to be passed down properly to all schools, and before it existed, many young disadvantaged people were not getting any proper additional funding in many rural areas. My hon. Friend may wish to know that we also recently widened entitlement to the pupil premium to include pupils in families who had been entitled to free school meals at any time in the past six years. She will be pleased to know that as part of our recent funding review, we have introduced a sparsity factor of up to £100,000 that will allow local authorities to give extra money to schools in rural areas, and one of the big gaining authorities will be North Yorkshire.

Margaret Ritchie: Given that the Secretary of State has had meetings with devolved Education Ministers in Northern Ireland and Wales about other examination matters, will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State had discussions with them about the potential for rural schools, their potential closure and the need for them to be sustained?

David Laws: My right hon. Friend did not, but he would be happy to.

Graham Stuart: Last week, the chief inspector of schools said that Ofsted’s report on unseen children painted
	“a striking new picture of disadvantage and educational underachievement”.
	In his speech, he said that we needed new policies and approaches to deal with underachievement in rural and coastal areas. If those policies are to succeed, they will need to be financed. Will the Minister commit today to a redistribution to rural areas, so that allocations are fairer and more equal?

David Laws: We are committed to introducing a fairer national funding formula, and we hope to be able to say more about that once we are clear about the spending review announcements later this week. We also intend to ensure, through Ofsted and the accountability measures we publish, that schools in rural, coastal and other areas that may have small proportions of young people on free school meals or entitled to the pupil premium are still under intense pressure to narrow these gaps, which are as unacceptable in rural and coastal areas as they are in our inner cities.

Duncan Hames: A small village primary school near Melksham in my constituency has grown over several years to serve more than 200 pupils in seven classes, five of them in temporary buildings. Will the Minister ensure that through the targeted basic need programme rural councils such as Wilshire’s will get the help they need to meet the growing primary school pupil population?

David Laws: We will certainly do that. The Government are spending more than double what the previous Government spent on capital to support new school places, and as my hon. Friend indicated, before too long we hope to announce the results of the targeted basic need programme, which will enable new schools to be established in areas of basic need, as well as the expansion of existing good and outstanding schools.

Adoption

John Glen: What recent progress he has made on reform of the adoption system.

Edward Timpson: I am determined to reform the adoption system to reduce delay for children. One of our most pressing priorities is increasing the number of approved adopters. We have already launched the First4Adoption telephone and online service to provide information to all potential adopters and published the adoption passport, and we are bringing in a quicker two-stage adopter approvals process from 1 July.

John Glen: My constituent Helen Holgate is a respected and experienced foster carer, but she still tells me that there are considerable court delays during the concurrency process. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the concurrent care process so that children can be placed permanently and more swiftly with a loving family on a full-time, permanent basis?

Edward Timpson: First, I would like to pay tribute to Helen Holgate and all the other fantastic foster carers helping many vulnerable children in our country. We are working towards streamlining the approval process for foster carers. On court proceedings, through the Children and Families Bill, we are introducing fostering for adoption rules to ensure that children are placed earlier with prospective adopters, and with the work of the Family Justice Board, we are helping to strip out unnecessary delays in care proceedings. As a result, the average length of a care case has already been reduced from 57 to 42.2 weeks.

Jenny Chapman: What more does the Minister think local government should be doing to support foster carers who, according to the Fostering Network, feel unsupported and often take in children when they do not feel quite prepared to do so?

Edward Timpson: With the Fostering Network and many other fostering charities, we have developed some excellent training materials for foster carers, to provide them with the support that they need. This will make them feel confident that they are in control of the placement, with the day-to-day decisions such as whether children get their hair cut or go on a sleepover being delegated to them. This will also help the children to feel that they have a normal family existence while they are in a foster care arrangement.

David Simpson: What more can be done under the reforms to encourage older people to adopt children?

Edward Timpson: One of the many myths surrounding adoption relates to the age of prospective adopters. We want anyone who is interested in adopting to come forward and use the new adoption gateway, which is the easy way of getting the information and advice that they need. We do not want to put people off adopting; we want to welcome them with open arms and do all that we can to support them in providing children with the homes they desperately need.

Non-resident Fathers

Richard Harrington: What steps his Department is taking to support schemes to help non-resident fathers to learn parenting skills and engage with their children.

Elizabeth Truss: The Children and Families Bill underlines our expectation that children normally benefit from the involvement of both parents. In addition, the early years teachers and early years educators qualifications that we are introducing this year and next year will include training in engaging parents in their child’s development and education.

Richard Harrington: One of the most interesting and inspiring constituency visits that I have made recently was to the Oxhey early years centre, which is run by a fantastic person called Helen Walsh. While I was there, I saw an excellent programme for non-resident fathers run by the Sunshine Children’s Centre in partnership with Watford football club. It brings together children and fathers who do not normally see their children to play, and helps the fathers with their parenting skills. Will the Minister confirm that the Government support this kind of thing? If she has time, perhaps she would like to come to Watford with me to see the centre.

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree that what the Sunshine Children’s Centre in Watford is doing is excellent; it is a very good example of best practice. I am delighted that the centre is working in partnership with Watford football club, which is the team that my dad supports. Perhaps he would be keen to visit the centre. We recently put out our new children’s centre guidance, which puts much more focus on getting parents involved in their children’s development and upbringing and on supporting families to be emotionally resilient. This is absolutely the kind of thing we want to see more of.

Mr Speaker: It is a new departure for Members on the Treasury Bench to subcontract ministerial visits to their parents. Who knows what else is in store?

Life-saving Skills

Justin Tomlinson: What consideration he has given to including life-saving skills in the physical education curriculum.

Elizabeth Truss: Our proposals for the new national curriculum were published for consultation earlier this year. They are based on the principle that the national curriculum should set out a body of essential knowledge that children should be expected to acquire in key subjects. We are considering the consultation responses, and considering the inclusion of life-saving skills.

Justin Tomlinson: I am conscious that we do not wish to be too prescriptive, but just two hours of training could enable help to be provided to those suffering the 60,000 cardiac arrests that take place outside hospital each year and give a real, tangible skill to those who wish to go into the sports and leisure industry.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for bringing a delegation from the British Heart Foundation to meet me. It made a good case for the introduction of live-saving skills. I also know that 86% of teachers support training in those skills. However, we have to strike a balance in the national curriculum between the flexibility that we give to teachers and what we prescribe centrally. Those factors will go into our final decision making.

Kerry McCarthy: On Friday, I visited Burnbush primary school in my constituency to meet a really lively group of year 6 pupils. They showed me the skills that they had learnt as a result of the Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and British Heart Foundation programme that has been going round schools and teaching children about resuscitation and how to stop people choking. Does the Minister agree that we should be considering such training for the curriculum not only in secondary schools but in primary schools, as their pupils could also benefit from learning those skills?

Elizabeth Truss: I think it is a fantastic programme that the British Heart Foundation runs. One thing we have done is to provide finance to the Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education Association to work with partners such as the British Heart Foundation on providing programmes that really bring the subject to life in schools.

Primary School Places

Karl McCartney: What funding his Department is providing to local authorities to address shortfalls in primary school places.

David Laws: By the end of this Parliament, we will have made well over £5 billion available to local authorities to support the provision of additional pupil places, which is more than double what was provided by the previous Government over a comparable period.

Karl McCartney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me that when we are dealing with a shortage of school places, the last thing we need is an assault on valuable teachers in the independent sector, who face being mummified with red tape to appease the vested interests of the Labour party?

David Laws: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the last thing we need is more bureaucracy and regulation in the school system.

Andrew Gwynne: The National Audit Office projects that there is a 240,000 shortfall of primary school places across England, and in fact there are now bulges in classes across Tameside and Stockport, the two local authorities covering my constituency. Given that, will the Minister explain what proportion of capital spend has gone to address this problem in the areas of need?

David Laws: I certainly can. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that under this Government, the amount of money that has gone into funding basic need places has doubled in comparison with the amount available under the last Government. I can also say that the reason why there might be pressures at the current time is that the hon. Gentleman’s party removed over 200,000 primary places between 2003 and 2010—in spite of the warnings about higher pupil numbers from the Office for National Statistics.

Philip Hollobone: The borough of Kettering has the sixth fastest household growth rate in the whole country, and the pressure on primary school places is getting more acute year by year. Will the Minister ensure that in his new funding formula, there is appropriate funding for areas of the country that are experiencing rapid population growth?

David Laws: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point because the Government are not only allocating much greater capital for basic need, but have changed the funding formula for distributing this money so that where there are pockets of basic need in areas that were previously not recognised, we are reflecting that fully in the distributions.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State was reticent last week when Sir Michael Wilshaw launched Ofsted’s report on closing the attainment gap for disadvantaged children attracting the pupil premium. Was that because Sir Michael Wilshaw advocated Labour’s proven policy of greater collaboration between schools to raise standards rather than the Secretary of State’s desire for privatised schools for profit of the kind that have been such a failure in Sweden?

David Laws: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. This Government are encouraging schools to collaborate; this Government are encouraging partnership; this Government are promoting national leaders of education; this Government are going to introduce something that their predecessors did not—tables of similar schools so that schools can learn from each other.

Children and Families Social Work

Phillip Lee: What steps he is taking to improve the quality of children and families social work.

Edward Timpson: Building on the recommendations of the Munro review, we have put in place an ambitious reform programme for social work that seeks to improve initial social work education through the Step Up to Social Work and Frontline training initiatives to get the best people into the profession as well as improve the quality of front-line practice by revising Working Together to Safeguard Children and appointing a chief social worker.

Phillip Lee: I thank the Minister for his answer. How does he plan to ensure that newly qualified social workers both have a degree that best equips them for the front line and receive proper support in the first few years of their career?

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend pinpoints a key area of our reform agenda. That is why we have asked Sir Martin Narey to look carefully at social work education and report back to Ministers later this year. It is also why we have introduced, along with the chief social worker, principal family social workers in each local authority area to help champion and challenge social work as well as to provide assistance and support in the first year, which we know has been so successful.

Luciana Berger: More than half of councils say that they are planning further cuts to children’s services. What impact does the Minister think this will have on social workers and their case loads?

Edward Timpson: To date we have seen strong protection of children’s services across local authorities, which recognise the importance of providing the best quality service in their areas. Social worker vacancy rates have fallen, not risen, from 10% in 2010 to 7% in 2012. Many local authorities are doing a fantastic job, but we need to ensure that all raise their game.

Bill Esterson: Given rising caseloads and the pressure exerted by the increase in child poverty up and down the country, does the Minister accept that more resources are needed to pay for additional social workers to deal with rising demand?

Edward Timpson: I explained in my previous answer the approach that local authorities quite rightly take to ensure that children’s services are the best they can be, but we can enable that through the revised Working Together to Safeguard Children, making it clearer who is responsible for providing which services while ensuring that the quality of social work is as high as possible. That is why I set out in my initial answer why this is such a high priority for the Government.

Lisa Nandy: Has the Minister seen the recent survey of 2,000 social workers, which paints a shocking picture of, in their words, “crisis”, “breaking point” and “chaos”. It shows increasing caseloads, long waiting lists, the use of non-qualified staff to assess children, the use of agency workers, and children who need help being turned away as thresholds are revised upwards to cope with the situation. As one social worker put it, “amber is the new green”. Is it not time that the Government got on red alert and did something about this crisis?

Edward Timpson: I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who was so supportive of many of the measures we have taken to bring in the recommendations of the Munro review, decides to use this set piece to provide a dividing line that does not need to be there. We are all trying to achieve the same thing: to improve outcomes for children who come into contact with children’s services. We are seeing improvements in the country, but they are needed across the board, and we are introducing reforms to ensure that children and families get high quality social work and support when they need it.

Secondary School Places (Essex)

Rebecca Harris: What plans he has to increase the diversity of secondary school places available in Essex.

Mr Speaker: A Minister to the Dispatch Box, please.

Bob Russell: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be keen to be a Minister, but he is not there yet, and I am in no position to appoint him.

David Laws: I apologise, Mr Speaker.
	Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that there are enough school places to meet demand in their areas. The Government are committed to improving quality and choice through the expansion of the academies programme, university technical colleges and sixth forms, and through the opening of free schools.

Rebecca Harris: The Minister will be aware that Essex county council is currently consulting on proposals to close the Deanes school—most recently rated by Ofsted as “good” with elements of “outstanding”—in my constituency. Clearly, the loss of the school will greatly reduce choice for parents, so will the Minister meet me to discuss the options to try to resist the plans?

David Laws: In spite of my tardiness in rising to the Dispatch Box, I am aware of the situation at the Deanes school and of my hon. Friend’s robust representation, as always, of the concerns of her constituents. Although the matter is primarily one for the local authority, as she will understand, I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the issues on the ground, which I know are of great importance to many of her constituents.

Bob Russell: The last Labour Government’s policies, which were backed by Labour in Colchester, would have led to the closure of the Thomas Lord Audley school. Thanks to the coalition, that school has been saved and is going from strength to strength. The Secretary of State will recall from his visits to Colchester, however, that there is still a question mark over secondary school provision on the Shrub End estate. Will he agree to meet a delegation from Colchester to see whether we can save that school, which Labour also wanted to shut?

David Laws: I am sure that either the Secretary of State or I would be delighted to meet a delegation from my hon. Friend’s constituency. Both the Secretary of State and I have been to his constituency a number of times, and I am sure that we will do so again.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that 350 secondary school students in Harlow are eligible for free school meals, but because they go to Harlow FE college, they do not get them, whereas the kids who go to the one sixth-form school in the constituency do get them? Please will my hon. Friend remedy that anomaly and ensure that free school meals are available for all eligible students?

David Laws: We are aware of that long-standing anomaly in the system, and we want to fix it. However, such matters depend on the budget allocations that we are given by the Treasury, and these are obviously difficult times. We shall have to look at the situation after the announcement of the spending review settlement.

School Funding Formula

Dominic Raab: What plans he has for reform of the schools funding formula.

David Laws: The current school funding system is unfair, and is based on an out-of-date assessment of need. We have already introduced reforms to make the system simpler and more transparent, which will assist preparation for the introduction of a national funding formula in the next spending review period.

Dominic Raab: I welcome that answer and that recognition. The current formula has arbitrary consequences in constituencies such as mine. Because a rising birth rate and other factors are not taken into account, parents living in areas like Claygate and Thames Ditton are struggling to secure local places. When will the review start, and what efforts will the Minister make to consult Members directly on the key issues and criteria that are at stake?

David Laws: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State and I are committed to introducing a fairer national funding formula in the next spending review period, but we are currently waiting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce our final settlement in his spending review statement this Wednesday. I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage in full consultation with all Members, including those who have particular interests in this area, as he has.

Nicholas Dakin: Pupils aged between 16 and 18 already receive significantly less funding than pre-16 and post-18 learners. Can the Minister assure 16 to18-year-olds that they will not suffer further detriment to their funding?

David Laws: We cannot make any comments until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the spending review settlement later this week, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State and I are working hard to secure a good settlement for all parts of the education system, not just for schools.

Robin Walker: I welcome the Minister’s comments about the unfairness of the current national formula. Having met members of the Worcestershire Association of School Business Management last week, I can tell him that that unfairness is very keenly felt at present. May I urge him to do all that he can to ensure that we move towards a fairer national formula both before and after 2015?

David Laws: I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking these matters particularly seriously. We have had a very unfair national funding formula for many years, and, sadly, the last Government did nothing to address it. At
	a time when there are difficult decisions to be made in all areas of funding, it is especially important for underfunded areas to have a better settlement, because otherwise they will be the areas that feel the budget pressures most acutely.

Valerie Vaz: Joseph Leckie academy in my constituency has missed out on funding for all sorts of reasons. May I ask the Minister to make good the Secretary of State’s promise to send a Minister to visit the school?

David Laws: I am sure that, if such an undertaking has been given, it will be honoured, but I urge the hon. Lady to contact my office so that we can ensure that that happens.

Young Carers

Stephen Barclay: What steps he is taking to support young carers’ attendance at school.

Edward Timpson: The Department has developed an online training module for school staff. It is designed to raise awareness about young carers, including awareness of the potential impact that their caring responsibilities can have on their school attendance and attainment. Importantly, the Department of Health has recently started training school nurses to be champions for young carers, and to help head teachers and governors to decide how best to support them at school.

Stephen Barclay: There are about 300 young carers in my constituency. As my hon. Friend recognised in his answer, young carers often reflect many of the best values, but their education suffers as a result of their caring duties. Will my hon. Friend write to me saying what he considers to be the best scheme to support them, and what impediments there are to the spreading of such measures, given that even neighbouring districts such as Fenland and Huntingdon take such different approaches?

Edward Timpson: I praise my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in his constituency. He has led by example in writing to all local secondary school heads to remind them of the support that young carers need, and to raise their awareness of what is available.
	As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, there is a wealth of good practice out there. We recently awarded a £1.2 million contract to the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to work directly with local services, including schools, and help them to improve support for young carers. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend explaining what we are doing over and above that, and what more we can do collectively—at both national and local levels—to improve support for young carers in schools.

Sharon Hodgson: The Minister knows that many of us on both sides of this House care very deeply about the hundreds of thousands of young carers in this country and that they should get the support they need to fulfil their potential. He just cited the support role school
	nurses can play for young carers, but he must know from the parliamentary questions I have asked that the number of school nurses across the country is tiny—indeed, I think one answer stated I had one in the whole of Sunderland. If this is the solution, he might want to look at that. We welcome the assurances the Minister gave at the Report stage of the Children and Families Bill, but as it is due to be debated in the other place next week, will he give us and our noble colleagues a guarantee that he will make this work an immediate priority, so the Bill will make the changes we want to see for these young people, as the care services Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), promised last year.

Edward Timpson: As ever, may I thank the hon. Lady for the tone she strikes with her question? We are at one in wanting to improve the support young carers receive. As she knows, I have met the Minister for care and support to agree some key principles for work in this area and to look at how we can use both the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill to bring about a closer connection between adult and young carers, so there is a whole-family approach to the support they receive. We will use the stages through the other place to try to make that approach much clearer.

Pupil Premium

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the effect of the pupil premium on attainment of children from socially deprived backgrounds.

David Laws: Results for 2012, the first year to reflect the impact of a full year of the pupil premium, showed a larger than expected narrowing of attainment gaps nationally for both key stage 2 and key stage 4. Further improvement is expected as the funding levels increase and schools focus more on evidence-based interventions to help disadvantaged children.

Alex Cunningham: That is very positive news, but schools are given a free hand to spend the pupil premium as they choose, rather than being required to target it on the most disadvantaged children who need the most support, and this comes at a time when the chief inspector is planning to get tough with schools that let poor children down. Will the Secretary of State get tough, too, and tell schools to concentrate these resources on the neediest children, instead of simply absorbing them into their budgets, as happens in some cases?

David Laws: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to allow schools to use this money for purposes other than that for which it is intended. Schools will have to use this money for the assistance of the most disadvantaged pupils. We are not prescribing the way in which they do that, because, unlike the last Government, we believe head teachers and professionals should be respected to choose their own interventions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ofsted will hold schools to account for using this money in the best way and narrowing the disadvantage gaps. If schools do not do that, they will face the consequences.

Amber Rudd: The two new academies in Hastings, the Hastings academy and St Leonards academy, were both rated 2 by Ofsted recently, which is a tremendous move forward for them. The Ofsted report particularly highlighted the fact that the pupil premium had made a great difference to the most socially disadvantaged. Would the Minister like to join me in congratulating the schools and their leadership?

David Laws: I certainly would like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those two schools, and I do believe that the combination of significant extra funds—after all, next year the pupil premium will be more than £1,000 per disadvantaged pupil—with scrutiny by Ofsted will make a big difference to the opportunities for disadvantaged pupils in the future, and narrow the totally unacceptable gap between the opportunities for young people from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Damian Hinds: Results for pupils from deprived backgrounds vary dramatically in different parts of the country. Will the Minister continue to ensure that Ofsted’s monitoring of the way in which the pupil premium is spent feeds through into strong, effective action, with a particular focus on the parts of the country where the gap between rich and poor is biggest?

David Laws: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that, in holding schools to account for the use of the pupil premium, Ofsted will be looking not only at the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupil performance in particular schools, but at the performance of disadvantaged pupils in particular schools versus the national average, and that it will also be looking at the progress that is being made, so that, whatever school a disadvantaged youngster is in, they can be sure that there will be scrutiny of those who run it, to make sure this money is used effectively and the gaps are narrowed across the whole school system.

Careers Advice

Andy Slaughter: What recent steps his Department has taken to improve careers advice and guidance; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Gove: Schools are legally required to secure careers guidance for 13 to 16-year-olds. That requirement will be extended to 12 to 18-year-olds in school, and to young people in colleges, from September.

Andy Slaughter: According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, more than half of employers think that young people lack career guidance and work experience. There are some very good voluntary schemes, such as Work Discovery, which I saw in action with year 6 pupils at Wendell Park primary school last week. Why are the Government not supporting more projects such as that?

Michael Gove: It sounds like an excellent project, and I should like to do everything I can to support it, and other social enterprises and businesses, to help young people experience the world of work.

Kelvin Hopkins: On Saturday, I had the pleasure of visiting a high-tech engineering company in Luton, and it was drawn to my attention, yet again, that we are having to recruit thousands of graduate engineers from abroad every year because we cannot train enough of them ourselves. When are the Government going to take real steps to encourage more youngsters to look for careers in engineering?

Michael Gove: Our ministerial team, and, indeed, the superb team at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, take every opportunity to encourage young people to consider engineering as a career, but one of the problems we face is that the quality of the teaching of literacy and, in particular, numeracy and mathematics in science qualifications is often not good enough to give ambitious young people the chance to become engineers. That is why we are improving the quality of English, mathematics and science teaching, and reforming GCSEs.

Technical and Vocational Education

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to improve the status of technical and vocational education.

Michael Gove: More than 60% of 16 to 19-year-olds now participate in vocational education. This Government have: raised the quality of vocational qualifications; expanded vocational education through studio schools and university technical colleges; and introduced tighter quality controls in further education and work experience. All those reforms build on Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education, which was welcomed across the board.

Andrew Selous: How can we ensure that high-quality non-academic learning gets the status and recognition it deserves, given that we need more practical on-the-job training, such as is being provided at university technical colleges?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a typically acute point. The way in which we can raise the esteem and prestige of vocational qualifications and vocational training is by making sure they are every bit as rigorous as academic qualifications and the academic pathway—I say “pathway” for want of a better word, although I am sure there is one. The way in which we do so is by making sure that the recommendations in Alison Wolf’s report are implemented—recommendations that were once accepted by the Opposition Front-Bench team but now seem to be rejected.

Steven Baker: The SKIDZ motor project in my constituency helps children achieve vocational skills pre-16. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that for children who need some context to help them with academic skills some vocational framework is available before they reach 16?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it is one reason we are consulting on changing the way in which schools are held to account for the way in which they provide for students up to the age of 16, in order to ensure that vocational and
	technical qualifications are genuinely considered to be equivalent to academic qualifications because they are as rigorous.

Youth Services

Nick Raynsford: What recent steps his Department has taken to improve youth services; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: In December 2011, “Positive for Youth” set out, for the first time, an overarching vision for youth policy, a key principle of which is that local authorities are best placed to decide how to shape their services to meet the needs of local young people. Their duty to secure sufficient services is outlined in the revised statutory guidance issued in June 2012. This Government have also spent an additional £141 million in a network of 63 myplace youth centres to support local youth service provision.

Nick Raynsford: In the aftermath of the appalling killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Prime Minister heard at first hand while visiting Woolwich about, among other things, the importance of a more proactive role for the youth service in providing constructive alternative options for young people at risk of being sucked into extremism or criminal gangs. Has the Department for Education yet submitted evidence to the Government’s taskforce on extremism? If not, will this be given a priority by the Department?

Edward Timpson: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important and serious point, which is all the more echoed around this Chamber today, as we will hear later during the Home Secretary’s statement. This is a priority for this Government and this Department. We have already submitted some evidence to the taskforce, and we will play a full and active role to make sure it achieves its objectives.

GCSEs

Ian Austin: What his plans are for the future of GCSEs.

David Wright: What his plans are for the future of GCSEs.

Michael Gove: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 15 and 17 together. We are reforming GCSEs to ensure that they stand comparison—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say to the Secretary of State that this is an attempted grouping on the hoof, of which I had no notice, but being the obliging fellow I am I will do my best to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman?

Michael Gove: I apologise, Mr Speaker, and thank you. We are reforming GCSEs to ensure that they stand comparison with exams in the highest-performing jurisdictions. We are consulting on changes to subject
	content for GCSEs. Ofqual is also consulting on changes to the structure, grading and standard of the new qualifications.

Ian Austin: I agree with the Secretary of State that many state schools do not stretch their brightest pupils enough to allow them to compete with pupils from private schools. In my constituency, only two out of seven schools reached the national average in GCSEs last year. I do not think there should be a school in the country in which fewer than 70% or 80% are getting five good GCSEs, including English and maths. Will he consider bringing back the black country challenge to boost standards in Dudley in the way the London challenge improved them in London?

Michael Gove: That is a very acute point from a Member of Parliament who, I know, is passionate about education. I will do everything I can to ensure that all the elements that made the London challenge and black country challenge a success apply to schools in his constituency through collaboration and a culture of excellence. I look forward to talking with him about how we can work together to ensure that his championing of high educational standards can be extended across the black country.

Tessa Munt: Will the Secretary of State consider yet again the inclusion of British sign language as a GCSE subject? It is appropriate for those students who are less academic and is, after all, a language someone can use throughout the whole of their life.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State can use it!

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) for making the point that British sign language was one of the few languages I learned when I was younger for family reasons. For that reason, I am committed to doing everything we can to encourage its take-up. We are working with Ofqual, the exams regulator, to see whether we can ensure that there is a qualification that is as rigorous as possible and that stands comparison with other GCSEs.

David Wright: I thank the Secretary of State for cantering through the questions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we need to drive up standards. What are the Secretary of State’s proposals for practical and vocational subjects? It is important that children who excel in those areas are given the reward they deserve.

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree. One of the recommendations from the Wolf report is that instead of simply having a pass/fail mark for practical and vocational qualifications and allowing students to pass purely on the basis of what a teacher has assessed rather than an external assessor, we should have a more sophisticated grading system and more rigorous external testing to ensure that vocational and technical qualifications are seen, rightly, as equivalent. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the steadfast support he has shown for state schools in his constituency, including the outstanding comprehensive, Thomas Telford.

Academies

Dave Watts: What measures are in place to ensure that academies are open to public scrutiny.

Michael Gove: Academies are open to greater accountability and scrutiny than other state-funded schools. Performance data including exam results, inspection reports and financial accounts are published for each academy. Academies are also accountable through analysis from the Education Funding Agency, and through greater data transparency and an improved inspection system academies are more open to public scrutiny than ever before.

Dave Watts: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but schools such as Byrchall High in Wigan are refusing to provide written responses to MPs’ inquiries. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State needs to act if there is to be public accountability on spend in those schools and public accountability on policy?

Michael Gove: It is absolutely regrettable if any principal or head teacher declines to respond to a request from an elected Member of Parliament. I will look into the case, but I should stress that academies are subject to freedom of information. The previous Government did not allow that, but this Government brought it in.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: My Department published destination data last week that showed how many schools are very successful in encouraging young people to go on to universities and into satisfying apprenticeships, but it is still a matter of regret that for one fifth of comprehensive schools not a single student makes it to a Russell Group university.

Annette Brooke: In the light of the recent conclusion of the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment that children are more vulnerable than adults to an equivalent asbestos exposure, what reassurances can the Secretary of State provide that his Department’s policy on asbestos in schools will be reviewed rigorously, transparently and in a timely fashion?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and I have been discussing today exactly what we can do to ensure that the arguments made in the committee’s report are taken on board and to ensure that when we think about how to invest in the future fabric of schools and about the state of the estate we take appropriate steps. I hope, following on from the spending review, we can be clear that the money we spend on maintenance will be spent in a way that takes account of the arguments made by my hon. Friend.

Stephen Twigg: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, over the past year, the number of infants in classes of more than 30
	has increased by more than 25,000—an increase of 50% in just 12 months? What proportion of free school places go to primary-age children in areas where there is a shortage?

Michael Gove: I think the hon. Gentleman is right about those figures for infants, but I also think that the increase in the number is less in percentage terms than was the increase under Labour. [Interruption.] I think it is, actually. I have answered the question of substance; the rest of it was rhetoric, so over to you.

Stephen Twigg: Three years ago, in the first comprehensive spending review, the Secretary of State got a truly terrible education capital spending settlement. His free schools programme fails to focus on areas where there is a shortage of places but opens new schools in areas with existing good schools with places available, and of course it allows unqualified people to teach. Is it not a policy driven by dogma, not by the best interests of children?

Michael Gove: No, not at all. In these matters, I often pay close attention to what Lord Adonis, a former schools Minister, says. He argued last week that we need more free school places in areas where there is a lack of high-quality school places. That is a different view from the one taken by the hon. Gentleman. I take the view that Lord Adonis is right—we need to give parents a choice where schools are poor—and therefore, not for the last time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Lorely Burt: Tudor Grange is a good non-faith-based secondary school in my constituency, but the governors have angered many parents in the school’s catchment area by attempting to introduce a faith school as a feeder school, whose children would take precedence for admittance over children in the local authority catchment area. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on whether this would constitute indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I know Tudor Grange and its outstanding head teacher, Jennifer Bexon-Smith. She is committed to helping children in difficult circumstances and is sponsoring an academy in Worcester, I think, so I cannot believe that she would take a decision that would discriminate against children in need of high-quality state education. The admissions code is clear about these matters, and I look forward to talking with my hon. Friend to make sure the public are reassured.

Bill Esterson: In 2011-12, there was a 10% fall in the number of graduates applying to teacher training programmes; there has also been a 17% rise in the number of schools using supply teachers, and we see reliance on unqualified teachers. How will those approaches raise standards and improve the outcome for children?

Michael Gove: I am pleased to be able to say that the statistics the hon. Gentleman quotes come from a period before the introduction of our school direct programme, which has achieved a dramatic increase in the number of highly qualified graduates entering the profession. In
	addition, thanks to the work we have done with the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry, there are more graduates in shortage subjects with 2:1s and firsts coming into the classroom. The more people with great degrees from great universities, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), we have teaching in our schools, the happier I am—even if it runs contrary to Labour policy.

John Pugh: There are 37 academy brokers on up to £700 a day. Are they bound by the civil service code of conduct?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. They are not bound by the civil service code, but they do have to have regard to the civil service code. I believe the question was raised in a Westminster Hall debate and he secured a partial answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—

Kevin Brennan: An incorrect answer, which she apologised for.

Michael Gove: I am terribly sorry, but I think that someone who makes a mistake and is happy to correct the record is in a rather better position than someone who attempts to belittle in a sexist fashion an honourable Minister.

Jonathan Reynolds: Teachers in my constituency tell me that teaching assistants make a huge contribution to their schools. Their work not only means that teachers have more time to teach, but has a big impact on things such as attendance and student discipline. In the light of recent press speculation, will the Secretary of State put on the record his support for teaching assistants and pledge to keep them in our schools?

Michael Gove: Delighted.

Lorraine Fullbrook: Academy@Worden in my constituency is now the highest achieving school in South Ribble, with the percentage of pupils who gain at least five A* to C grades increasing from 76% in 2010 to 100% last year. As a trustee of the school, which became an academy this year, I am pleased to ask my right hon. Friend if he will join me in congratulating Academy@Worden on its achievement, and if he will accompany me on a visit to the school, which is a great success story of the academies programme.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It sounds like a fantastic result from that academy. Sponsored academies have improved their results at a faster rate than local authority-maintained schools, and I am sure that someone from the Department for Education would be delighted to visit the school.

Kate Hoey: Lilian Baylis school, an outstanding secondary school in Kennington in my constituency, will this month receive the dubious award of taking the longest time to become an academy—it is now more than 22 months—because of a dispute between the local authority and the Department over the fact
	that it is a private finance initiative, along with legal costs. In the meantime, the school is suffering, as it wants to get on with becoming an academy. Will the Secretary of State try to get that sorted out? Only a small amount of money is needed from someone, but clearly we need to get it sorted.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is a brilliant campaigner for higher quality schools in her constituency, and we will do everything we can to help. I am afraid that her question lays bare the fact that there are some really good MPs on the Labour Benches who want their schools to become academies, but an insufficient number of Labour local authorities that are prepared to stand with us against the enemies of promise.

David Mowat: Bewsey Lodge primary school is a very good school in a difficult part of Warrington. It has a large special needs unit that, although it is high quality, reduces the overall performance metrics, which affects morale. Better school comparability could be achieved if metrics were produced with, and without, special needs units.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his keen interest in schools in his constituency that provide important and excellent special educational needs provision. It is important that we have an accountability system that recognises the achievements of all pupils, which very much chimes with Sir Michael Wilshaw’s comments last week, as well as the strengthening of the SEN element of inspection from September 2012. We will launch an accountability consultation shortly, and doubtless my hon. Friend will want to contribute to it on the very point that he has just made.

John Cryer: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the heads of academies cannot create small sub-committees of governors that can then take crucial decisions about the general future of the schools in question?

Michael Gove: It is absolutely the case that the principals of academies are tightly bound by a set of rules about how governing bodies or boards of trustees should operate. If there are specific cases about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned but which, for understandable reasons, he does not wish to raise on the Floor of the House, perhaps we can meet to discuss what is giving him concern.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does the Minister agree that making financial education a formal part of the national curriculum should ensure not only that every child leaves school with a basic understanding of personal finance but that those who seek to start their own businesses are better equipped with the skills that they need to succeed?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have improved financial education in maths through the better study of interest rates, loans and mortgages. We have also included the subject in citizenship classes and, furthermore, we are participating in the PISA —the programme for international student assessment—
	comparison between different countries on financial literacy. We can therefore compare the capabilities of our 15-year-olds with those in other countries.

Paul Goggins: In response to a cross-party amendment to the Children and Families Bill proposing a continuation of funding to foster carers until care leavers reach the age of 21, the Minister said that he was reviewing the current arrangements and was prepared to legislate if necessary. Will he give the House an indication of the time scale for that review?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, both for his continued and passionate support for children in care and care leavers, and for his instrumental work in securing the junior ISAs—individual savings accounts—which have proved to be a great success, with over 30,000 in operation. We want to enable care leavers to continue to live with former foster carers where it is right for them to do so. I know from my own family experience that it can be a hugely beneficial part of their transition to adult life.
	Although staying put policies have been clearly set out—and I wrote to all the directors of children’s services in October to lay out the terrain so that they can do more to support foster children in that situation—we want to see further improvements. More figures will be published later this year on the staying put pilots and how they are beginning to spread more widely. We will look at those keenly, as we want more progress more quickly.

Neil Carmichael: School governance is an increasingly topical issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to ensure that our school governing bodies are strong, courageous and capable of making sure that all schools provide decent education for all their pupils?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is right. That is why I am so pleased that Lord Nash and Sir Michael Wilshaw are working together to raise the quality of school governance.

Meg Hillier: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), both the think-tank, Reform, and the Treasury have raised questions about the efficacy and value for money of teaching assistants. Will the Secretary of State give his view?

Michael Gove: I respect teaching assistants. I am also very interested in what Reform has to say, but above all I obey what the Treasury tells me.

Bob Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give me his assessment of how well the new Harris academy in Beckenham has been doing since its foundation?

Michael Gove: The Harris academy in Beckenham, like all Harris academies, is performing significantly better than its predecessor school. May I place on the record my gratitude for the visionary leadership shown by Lord Harris of Peckham, Sir Dan Moynihan and by
	those Members of Parliament from Mitcham and Morden to Beckenham who have championed Harris academies, often in the teeth of opposition from the National Union of Teachers, the NASUWT and other unions that have acted as the enemies of promise?

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree with his own chief inspector of schools that over the past 15 years standards across the urban population of this country have risen remarkably? Will he give the House the opportunity to hear him say, “Well done, teachers. You’ve done a good job. You could do more but you’ve done pretty well over these past 15 years”?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he is increasingly becoming, for giving me this opportunity to underline that point. Let me first of all praise those politicians from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) to Lord Adonis who, in the teeth of resistance from trades unions and others, pressed forward the case for reform. Let me praise the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for his courage in doing so. Let me regret that the momentum for reform was lost under the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but let me above all praise teachers for the fantastic job that we are doing. We have the best generation of young teachers and the best generation of head teachers ever in our schools, and I had the opportunity of seeing some of them when I visited the constituency of Buckingham just over a week ago. In both schools that I visited, Buckingham school and the Royal Latin, I was privileged to see brilliant teachers doing a wonderful job for an MP who believes in the very best of state education.

Mr Speaker: I warmly thank the Secretary of State and I know that Angela Wells and David Hudson, the head teachers of the Buckingham and Royal Latin schools, will similarly thank the right hon. Gentleman.

Paul Uppal: In September this year in my constituency, a free school will be opening in one of the most deprived wards in Wolverhampton, providing an invaluable ladder for
	social mobility. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a future Conservative Government will provide free school places and free schools to meet the needs of local people?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent championing of greater choice for his constituents. It is absolutely the case that if a Conservative Government or indeed a Conservative-led Government are returned after the next election we will make sure that parental choice and higher standards are at the heart of everything we do.

David Wright: May I give the Secretary of State the chance to say “Well done” to Labour-run Telford and Wrekin council, which is developing a co-operative academy model, bringing schools together, working as co-operative schools?

Michael Gove: There are some great people in Labour local government and if they are friends of the hon. Gentleman, they are friends of mine.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of Geoffrey Bettley, who was a teacher at St Mary’s in Menston on the border of my constituency, who downloaded child porn images, was rightly sacked by the school and was put on the sex offenders register. Bizarrely, the Secretary of State appears to have allowed this gentleman to start teaching again. Surely he appreciates that people convicted of those offences are not welcomed back into the classroom by parents. Can he explain how he arrived at that decision, and what he will do to try to reverse it?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that very serious issue. Mr Bettley is not teaching at the moment and will not be teaching in future. The process we arrived at for ensuring that the National College for Teaching and Leadership reviewed cases was not as good as it should have been, to put it mildly. I do not put the blame at anyone’s door other than my own, but one of the things I have been anxious to do following the Bettley case is to make sure that we have new guidance in place to ensure that the decisions taken in future are appropriate to keep our children safe.

Undercover Policing

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the latest allegations concerning the use of undercover officers to smear the reputations of Doreen and Neville Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks. These allegations follow several serious claims about the activities of police officers engaged in undercover operations, and I would like to update the House on the several investigations and inquiries into the conduct of those officers.
	Before I do so, I know that the whole House will want to convey its support for the Lawrence family. They experienced an unspeakable tragedy, their pain was compounded by the many years in which justice was not done, and these latest allegations, still coming 20 years after Stephen’s murder, only add to their suffering. I also know that the House will agree with me about the seriousness of allegations concerning police corruption and wrongdoing. We must be ruthless in purging such behaviour from their ranks.
	As Members of the House will remember, in February I announced that the commissioner of the Metropolitan police had agreed that Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, would investigate allegations of improper practice and misconduct by the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad, which for around 40 years specialised in undercover operations. Mick Creedon took over a Metropolitan police investigation called Operation Herne.
	In addition to these latest allegations about the Lawrence family, Operation Herne is also looking into claims about the use by police officers of dead children’s identities, the conduct of officers who had infiltrated environmentalist groups, and other serious matters. Given the nature of those allegations and the many years the special demonstration squad was in existence, we should not be surprised if further allegations are made. I want to be clear that all such allegations will be investigated. Operation Herne is led by Chief Constable Creedon and elements are supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
	Today the Metropolitan police are also referring details of the new set of allegations to the IPCC, meaning that this aspect of the investigation will also be supervised. I know that some Members have suggested that the IPCC should take over Operation Herne completely, and that is an understandable reaction. I spoke with Dame Anne Owers, the chair of the IPCC, earlier today. She does not believe that a greater degree of IPCC control would enhance the investigation, but I can confirm that where the Creedon investigation finds evidence of criminal behaviour or misconduct by police officers, the IPCC will investigate and the officers will be brought to justice.
	I have also spoken today with Chief Constable Mick Creedon. He told me that the first strand of his work, which relates to allegations about the identities of dead children, will report before the House rises for the summer recess. At present there are 23 police officers working on the case, with a further 10 police staff working in support. In the course of their investigation they have already examined in the
	region of 55,000 documents and have started to interview witnesses, including police officers who worked in the special demonstration squad.
	I want to emphasise that undercover operations are a vital part of protecting the public, but they need detailed supervision and constant reassessment to ensure that what is being done is justified. For obvious reasons, members of the public cannot know the details of the police’s undercover operations, but we need to have the assurance that this work is conducted properly and in accordance with a procedure that ensures that ethical lines are respected.
	In February last year, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported on how forces go about undercover policing. That work was undertaken partly in response to allegations about the conduct of a police officer named Mark Kennedy, who had been tasked with infiltrating an environmental protest group. HMIC’s report made a series of recommendations designed to improve the procedures that police forces have in place for managing and scrutinising the deployment of undercover officers. Among other recommendations, HMIC said that the authorisation arrangements for high-risk undercover deployments should be improved and that additional controls should be put in place where a deployment is intended to gather intelligence rather than evidence.
	Since March this year, HMIC has been working on a further report that will check on how the police have implemented its recommendations, and I can tell the House that this report is due to be published on Thursday. I can also tell the House that Tom Winsor, the new chief inspector, plans to undertake a further review of undercover police work later this year.
	Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice told the Home Affairs Committee that the Government intend to bring forward legislation to require law enforcement authorities to obtain the prior approval of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners before renewing the deployment of an undercover officer for a period exceeding 12 months. In future, authorisation should also be sought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for any activity to develop a cover persona.
	I want to turn now to the allegations regarding the Lawrence family. The investigation into Stephen’s murder has cast a long shadow over policing, especially in London. That is why, in July last year, I asked Mark Ellison QC to investigate allegations of deliberate incompetence, and corruption, on the part of officers involved in the original investigation into the murder.
	Mr Ellison was the lead barrister in the successful prosecutions of Gary Dobson and David Norris and he is supported by Alison Morgan, junior counsel from the prosecution. I have spoken to Mr Ellison today, and I encouraged him to go as far and wide as he would like in his investigation. I have also spoken to Mick Creedon to make sure that Mr Ellison will have access to any relevant material uncovered in the course of Operation Herne. We must await the findings of the Ellison review, which, given the latest allegations, will be published later than originally intended. When the review concludes, a decision will have to be made about whether its findings should lead to any formal police investigations.
	I am determined that we should have zero tolerance of police corruption and wrongdoing. That is why the Government are beefing up the IPCC, making the
	inspectorate more independent, and it is why we asked the College of Policing to establish a code of ethics for police officers.
	As the House knows, I have also launched a panel inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan, and I am determined that we get to the bottom of all of these latest allegations. We must do so to ensure public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system, not least for the sake of Doreen and Neville Lawrence, and for the memory of their son Stephen. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I join the Home Secretary in expressing support for the Lawrence family, who have indeed endured great tragedy. I also pay tribute to them for the work that they have done to pursue justice and reform over very many years. The whole country has been appalled by the allegations that police officers were involved in spying on or attempting to undermine the Lawrence family and their friends when they should have been supporting them to get justice done. It is vital that we get to the truth about what happened.
	Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a terrible racist murder, yet it took 19 years for any prosecutions to succeed. We knew already about the failings of the initial investigations and prosecutions and what the Macpherson review identified as both incompetence and institutional racism at the time. We knew already about the failure to support and listen to the Lawrence family at the time, as chronicled in the Macpherson review, and we know, too, that immense work has been done since then, including reform of policing and the work by Clive Driscoll’s team in the Met to secure the two successful prosecutions last year.
	However, these latest allegations must be taken very seriously because they suggest that the full information was not given to the Macpherson review at the time—a concern that we raised last year in the House over corruption allegations, where still we have no answers. Most disturbingly of all, the latest allegations suggest that police officers were working undercover to undermine victims of crime when the very job of a police officer is to support and get justice for victims of crime. That is why people across the country—including police officers, who do vital work each day—will be appalled by these allegations.
	I welcome the work that the Home Secretary has set out today on undercover policing; it is vital that there should be much stronger oversight and control of the important work that police officers do but that nevertheless needs strong control. I also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary to ensure an independent look at the allegations about undermining the Lawrence family. I am glad that she has gone further than the Prime Minister’s call this morning for the Metropolitan police to investigate; clearly, the investigation needs to be independent. However, it remains unclear whether she expects the lead on getting to the truth of the allegations to be taken by Mark Ellison QC, by Operation Herne under Chief Constable Creedon or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. It would be very helpful to have clarification on this.
	Mark Ellison QC is indeed a well-respected independent person to review these allegations and report back to the Lawrence family, but he does not, of course, have the powers to instigate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, Operation Herne is a wide-ranging report with a far wider remit looking into undercover policing, especially in the environmental movement, over very many years. The Home Secretary set out the huge scope of that investigation in her statement. May I suggest that we need a specific independent investigation into these allegations, given their seriousness and the significance of the Lawrence investigation and the Macpherson review for policing and confidence in policing? We need a clear timetable for getting to the truth. The investigation will also need to look at whether the Macpherson review was misled. Would it not be better to set out a clear and focused independent investigation into these allegations with a precise remit and the powers to pursue both criminal and disciplinary proceedings?
	The Home Secretary said that any conclusions that the Ellison review comes to would still have to be handed to the IPCC or to another police force to pursue a further investigation. Given that these allegations already refer to events of 20 years ago, surely this would risk creating significant further delays. Has she considered giving the Ellison review additional powers or combining it with independent police or IPCC investigations in order to allow it to pursue the truth and trigger further investigations where necessary?
	The vital work that police officers do every day to investigate crimes, bring offenders to justice and support victims relies on public confidence. As we saw with the Hillsborough review, we can never ignore any case where there is evidence that police officers may be involved in undermining victims or investigations rather than supporting them. For the sake of victims of crime and the excellent work that police officers do each day, there must be a proper, swift and effective system to investigate when things go wrong and when concerns like these arise.
	I hope that the Home Secretary can assure the House that there is a clear remit for the review and that she will make sure that it is clear and independent, with the focus, the powers and the timetable it needs to get to the truth and pursue the investigations. It should not have taken 19 years for the Lawrence family to have seen some justice for the murder of their son, and they should not still have to fight for answers about the way they were treated and failed so many years ago.

Theresa May: I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the approach that she has taken to this very serious issue. We all agree across this House that these allegations are appalling and need to be looked into properly.
	The right hon. Lady raised a number of issues about the independence and timeliness of any investigation, the proper form of the investigation, and bringing people to justice. She asked specifically whether the allegations that have been revealed in relation to the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family would be investigated under Operation Herne, by Mark Ellison, or by the Met under the auspices of the IPCC. Operation Herne was originally set up by the Metropolitan police, but it is now being led by Chief Constable Creedon. Although Met officers are still involved in that investigation,
	Chief Constable Creedon has also brought into it officers from his own force and elsewhere. The investigation by Chief Constable Creedon will look specifically at the tasking of officers in the SDS. That was part of the operation’s original remit. It is one of the issues that was raised by Peter Francis in the interview that he gave to the programme that will be shown tonight.
	On Mark Ellison’s review, the right hon. Lady asked whether the Macpherson inquiry was misled. Another specific part of the remit of Mark Ellison’s review is that he looks into whether all the evidence that was necessary to be given to the Macpherson inquiry was indeed given to it. Obviously, the fact that Peter Francis has suggested that he and others were told not to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry is a matter of particular concern, but that will be investigated by Mark Ellison. Having spoken to Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon this morning, I am clear that they are working together; there has been a degree of interaction between the two. They are working to ensure that nothing falls between the two stools of the review and the investigation.
	It is right that investigations into whether there has been misconduct or criminality are the remit of a police investigation—the Creedon investigation—with reference to the IPCC, as has been the case today, with the Met referring these allegations to the IPCC. There must be a proper pursuit of justice so that people can be charged with criminal offences or so that appropriate action can be taken for misconduct.

Peter Bone: Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of police officers in this country will be as horrified as the rest of the country at these allegations? Does she believe that a similar thing could occur now?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.
	On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

Clive Efford: It is worth reminding ourselves that the Macpherson inquiry was instigated by failures in the initial investigation by the Metropolitan police. It was effectively an investigation into the Metropolitan police, so the idea that it was hiding information from the inquiry beggars belief. Sir Paul Condon, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, said that he knew nothing about the SDS in the Metropolitan police, which I believe was funded by
	the Home Office. Someone in the Metropolitan police decided not to provide this information to the Macpherson inquiry. Can we be clear: people are not satisfied with the police investigating the police? The public will be satisfied only by a fully independent, publicly held inquiry with oversight of all these matters, including the suggestions of corruption and the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence.

Theresa May: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s level of concern. He is right that the Macpherson inquiry was an investigation into the way in which the Metropolitan police had handled itself. It went wider and looked at the Metropolitan police as a whole, including its attitudes in such cases. No information should have been hidden from the Macpherson inquiry and the allegation that it was is shocking. I set up the Mark Ellison review last year with the support of and after full discussions with Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family. I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at whether information had been withheld from the Macpherson inquiry, so that is already part of his remit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mark Ellison is independent in the work that he is doing.

Simon Hughes: Like many colleagues, I have been privileged to support Doreen and Neville Lawrence over the years, as well as Duwayne Brooks, who is a friend and colleague. I am sure that the whole of south-east London and beyond is appreciative of the Home Secretary’s quick response. However, I put it to her that it is not just the Lawrence case that gives rise to the suspicion that in those days and for quite a long time, the Metropolitan police had institutional bias against black and minority ethnic communities in London. I would like her reassurance that the independent investigation will look not just at one famous and dreadful historic case, but at what some of us suspect was a much wider problem that covered many more families over many more years.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right that it is important that the investigation into the special demonstration squad covers other cases. That is exactly what Chief Constable Creedon is determined to do. Although there is a specific allegation about the work of the SDS in respect of the Stephen Lawrence murder, it is important that the investigation covers a wider range of activities. Its remit will allow it to do just that.
	If I may correct myself, I said that the SDS was disbanded more than a decade ago. In fact, it was disbanded in the late 2000s, which is not quite a decade ago.

Jack Straw: I welcome the prompt and positive action the Home Secretary has taken this morning in light of these revelations. I am sure they will be welcomed by the Lawrence family, who may be forgiven for believing that they have been punished twice over for the fact that they inconveniently allowed their son to be murdered while he stood innocently at a bus stop in south London in 1993. Does the Home Secretary accept that I, as Home Secretary, and the Metropolitan Police Authority knew absolutely nothing about the allegations, notwithstanding that it was well known that I established the Macpherson inquiry and wanted to know everything there was to know about the
	Metropolitan police’s conduct of that investigation? That conduct alone is reprehensible, as is the fact that we now understand that such information was kept from Lord Condon, the then commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Does she agree that finding out why we were kept in the dark, and, more importantly, why the Macpherson inquiry was kept in the dark, should be a focus of the investigation?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As he says, he established the Macpherson inquiry and was in office when it published its report. At the time, there were some very concerning issues regarding the way the murder was investigated, both originally and later on, and on the attitude, which the Macpherson inquiry looked into, of the Metropolitan police. He is right that we should be very concerned if information was deliberately withheld from those who should have been informed of it, which is why I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at the issue of the information that was given to the Macpherson inquiry. The remit of Operation Herne, now under Chief Constable Creedon, includes looking at reporting mechanisms within the SDS, and at how information was disseminated.

John Whittingdale: Is the Home Secretary aware of the growing concern regarding the actions of the police in some instances and the inactions of the police in others? Can she comment on the reports at the weekend that the police have uncovered widespread use of private investigators to hack telephones not just by journalists, but by lawyers’ firms and other corporations? Can she say why it appears that the police thought it right to tell Lord Justice Leveson about that, but not pursue any action against those who committed criminal offences?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend will be well aware that decisions on whether the police investigate individuals and alleged offences are an operational matter for the police, and that it is for the police, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether those investigations lead to charges and prosecution. However, I recognise the degree of concern that he raises. Phone hacking by some aspects of the press has caused disquiet in this House for some time. Suggestions that it could have been more widespread are, of course, equally worrying.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and join her in condemning the shocking revelations that were made in relation to the Lawrence family. The Select Committee on Home Affairs published its report into undercover police officers on 1 March. It expressed deep concern that Operation Herne had taken 20 months, cost £1.2 million and involved 23 officers, and yet nobody had been arrested. Chief Constable Creedon is a full-time serving chief constable. Frankly, with 50,000 documents to look through it will take years to resolve this matter. We need a timetable. What words of comfort does she have for the families whose dead children’s identities have been used by undercover agents? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that the time has come to look seriously at a public inquiry into the use of undercover agents.

Theresa May: I recognise the concern that the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Affairs Committee have raised about the timetable for Operation Herne, but I would make two comments in response. First, Chief Constable Mick Creedon expects to be able to respond on the issue of the use of dead children’s identities before the House rises for the summer recess. That is one part of the inquiry. Where possible, his intention is to report on issues as they arise, rather than waiting until the end of all the investigations, but obviously that will be done where appropriate and depending on what has been found and what he is able to report on. Secondly, it is also fair to say—the right hon. Gentleman is right about this—that the Metropolitan police had been conducting Operation Herne for some time before Chief Constable Creedon was brought in, but sometimes it is easier for somebody coming into an investigation from outside the home force being investigated to interview people and get the evidence required.

Philip Hollobone: I refer the House to my entry in the register.
	Surely we need to be clear that the police’s role is to investigate crime, not to smear the victims of crime. Given that in this case it has taken a long time for these details to emerge, is the Home Secretary satisfied that if a junior police officer is given an instruction by a more senior colleague to do something that he or she thinks is clearly inappropriate, there is the appropriate mechanism for that junior officer to do something about it?

Theresa May: I am absolutely clear that any junior officer asked to do something that they should not be being asked to do by a senior officer should be able to report that and ensure that appropriate action is taken. Any former officer in the special demonstration squad or anybody who has any information or allegations about the squad should come forward so that Operation Herne can have all the information available to it in the investigations that we all agree it must undertake.

Peter Hain: Can the Home Secretary think of a more grotesquely perverted sense of police priorities than where, instead of hunting down and prosecuting those responsible for the vicious racist murder of a talented British youngster, they infiltrate an undercover agent into the campaign to secure justice? Will she assure the House that she will look personally at every undercover operation and check that nothing so dreadful is going on today?

Theresa May: It is of course right that we have changed the arrangements in order to put in place a stronger procedure for the deployment of undercover officers and that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners has been brought in to consider cases where it is suggested that an undercover officer should be in place for more than 12 months. Of course, the House will be concerned about the allegations made over the operation of the SDS and the Lawrence family, but as to the suggestion that the Home Secretary should be responsible for deciding on undercover operations—

Peter Hain: I did not say that.

Theresa May: I might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that operational independence is important, and we should always retain that.

Gavin Barwell: Does the Home Secretary agree that it now appears that the Macpherson report, which was so controversial at the time, actually understated the scale of the problem, and that the response that Neville and Doreen Lawrence received when their son was brutally murdered fell so far short of what they had a right to expect that it is almost beyond belief? Given that the Metropolitan police cannot do their job unless they have the support of all London’s communities, is it not essential that we get to the bottom of what has happened as soon as possible and that anyone found guilty of wrongdoing feels the full weight of justice?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Neville and Doreen Lawrence had every right to expect that the police would do nothing less than hunt down those who murdered their son Stephen. Sadly, as we have seen, it was many years before anyone was brought to justice and there were issues with how the investigation was conducted and with the Metropolitan police, as was shown in the Macpherson report. He is right that if the police are to do their job, they need the confidence and support of the community, which is why it is imperative that where there is wrongdoing, it is identified, and that those who have committed wrongdoing, be it misconduct or criminal activity, are brought to the appropriate justice.

William McCrea: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House today. Will she tell us when she was first informed of these serious allegations about the undercover operation relating to the Lawrence family?

Theresa May: I was made aware that there was a possibility that this allegation was being made only towards the end of last week.

John Glen: In February, the Home Secretary announced to the House an expansion of the powers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A key issue that my constituents raise with me is the timeliness of the decisions by the IPCC. Is she confident that the commission is sufficiently resourced to give quick, timely turnarounds when serious allegations are made against the police?

Theresa May: As part of the work that we are doing to expand the remit of the IPCC so that it can look into all serious allegations against police officers, we are discussing with the commission the extra resources that will need to be made available in order to ensure that it can do that. There is of course always a tension between the need for a timely response to an allegation and the need to ensure that the investigation has been conducted properly. We shall be discussing with the IPCC the level of resource that it needs to ensure that it can undertake the extra duties that we require of it.

Paul Goggins: The Home Secretary referred in her statement to last year’s report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of
	constabulary, which made a number of recommendations about the authorisation arrangements for undercover operations. On several occasions, she has mentioned new legislation in relation to operations lasting more than 12 months, but does she have any measures in mind that would strengthen the arrangements for serious operations lasting less than 12 months?

Theresa May: Yes, we have been looking at this, and HMIC will be reporting on the extent to which there is better management of those deployments of officers. One of the issues that came up in the Mark Kennedy case, which initiated that HMIC report, related not only to the length of time an individual had been operating in a particular undercover operation but to the question whether there had been proper management of the deployment during the course of the operation. That is something that we and HMIC will be returning to.

Duncan Hames: Mick Creedon found that the use of dead children’s identities by undercover officers had been commonplace. Does the Home Secretary recognise that until such time as the parents of all children whose identities have been stolen in that way have been informed, any parent who has lost a child will, having grieved, be left to wonder what deception might have been carried out in their child’s name? How long will it be before this matter can be resolved and those parents can be given the reassurance that they need?

Theresa May: Chief Constable Creedon has indicated that he hopes to be able to respond on that issue before the House breaks for the summer recess. I cannot say what his response to the available information will be, but I hope that Members will welcome the fact that he has put a priority on that particular issue.

Nick Brown: The full implications of the Home Secretary’s statement are truly shocking, and I share the reservations about the remedies that have been expressed by those on the Labour Front Bench. One thing that the Home Secretary could do now is address the issue raised with her by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and confirm to the House that the report he referred to exists. Will she get a copy of it and place it in the House of Commons Library? Will she also give a copy to the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who should have been given it some years ago?

Theresa May: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will, of course, take seriously the references made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Ben Wallace: Undercover work requires exceptional personnel and thorough controls. Selection and training are vital components to ensure that such operations as have been reported to us today do not happen again. Will my right hon. Friend look at training across the country to ensure that the training of undercover officers is of the highest standard and that the training of senior police
	officers ensures that they understand the very important need for control throughout an operation, whether it be a short-term or a long-term one?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance not only of training for individual officers, but of the need to ensure that senior officers properly manage any deployment of undercover operatives. That is indeed one of the issues that, as I mentioned earlier, was raised in the HMIC report last year. HMIC will, of course, look at the implementation of its recommendations, and will be reporting this Thursday. Having set up the College of Policing, we now have a body that is responsible for ensuring that for police operations across the board, appropriate training is given and to the right and correct standards.

Katy Clark: Another of the allegations that have been made is that an undercover police officer was one of the co-authors of the leaflet that led to what became known as the McLibel court case, and that another undercover police officer had a two-year relationship with one of the defendants in that case. Will the Home Secretary ensure that this is also thoroughly investigated?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that the remit of Operation Herne in relation to the SDS goes very wide. It is not focused just on a limited number of cases; it looks at the whole operation of the SDS, including the reporting lines, as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and a number of other matters. It has a wide-ranging remit.

Diane Abbott: These allegations are very shocking, but for those of us involved in campaigning around those issues at the time, they are not entirely surprising. It was era when, for instance, there was a death in police custody and negative information very quickly found its way into the public domain. I was the first Member of Parliament to raise this case on the Floor of the House and I was close to the Lawrence family at the time. I remember that the reason why Doreen was so angry, so upset and so determined was that she felt that the police were not even trying. Now, it seems clear that they not only were not trying, but were actively trying to denigrate and smear the family. Does the Home Secretary appreciate that this was a totemic case for a generation and that she owes it the Lawrence family, but also to the wider community, to get to the bottom of what happened, who knew and who authorised this operation?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that I fully understand the seriousness of this case and the allegations made around it. The Operation Herne investigation will get to the bottom of this; it is the whole point of having that investigation, and also the Mark Ellison review to look at issues around the Macpherson inquiry and other matters. We will get to the bottom of this, find out what was happening and how the SDS was operating, how it was being tasked and so forth.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that this is a case about which many people were concerned. As she says, she was the first Member of Parliament to raise it in this
	House—and appropriately so. I can only join the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family for the work they have done over the years not to take no for an answer and to carry on campaigning until they have seen at least a degree of justice in relation to Stephen’s murder. But as we have seen from these allegations, there is still more to be done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is bursting with anticipation. He need not worry that I have forgotten him; how could I? I call Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I thank the Home Secretary for the statement she has given today. It is something beyond disgusting that, when many of us thought that Macpherson was a moving-on stage in the whole area of public policy in relation to the black community and to policing, we find out that whole elements of the Metropolitan police had not moved on at all, and indeed were busy smearing and obstructing justice in exactly the way they had beforehand. The Guardian reported at great length on Saturday the behaviour of two undercover police officers, Bob Lambert and John Dines. Bob Lambert is known to some of us in this House and is a very clever operator—there is no question about that. It is also clear that during the undercover operations used against the Lawrence family and in the McLibel case and a number of other cases, senior officers in Scotland Yard must have known who was doing what and known of the disreputable personal behaviour of such people, and must still know. I hope the inquiry is not restricted within the police force but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), is open and public, and that heads roll at a high level in Scotland Yard for those who have covered up the truth and allowed smearing and injustice to go on for a very long time. Unless that inquiry gets to the bottom of these matters, there will be no credibility and no public confidence in policing.

Theresa May: The investigation is, of course, looking into allegations that have been made that attempts were made to smear the Lawrence family, is looking widely at the operation and tasking of the special demonstration squad, and is looking at how reporting was undertaken, which I assume will include the question of who was aware of what was being done. It is clear that a number of cases are already under the supervision of the IPCC because they relate to the conduct of officers, which it is appropriate for the IPCC to consider, but I am clear, as are those involved in the investigation, that they should follow the evidence, and we must ensure that those who are guilty of wrongdoing will be brought to justice.

David Winnick: In view of the latest allegations of disgraceful conduct, as well as the names of dead children being used by police agents, and previous misconduct relating to Hillsborough—for which the Prime Minister has apologised—the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, was there not something rotten at the heart of policing for many years?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of issues other than the operations of the special demonstration squad—of course, the House has debated the events that took place at Hillsborough, which are also being investigated by both former Chief Constable Jon Stoddart and the IPCC—and it is right that we get to the bottom of such matters. What is as important is that we ensure that lessons have been learned from how things were done in the past, and that changes have taken place. As I said in relation to the deployment of undercover operatives, we are clear that we need to continue to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place and that where those operatives are working—they do good work in many cases to keep the public safe—they do so according to ethical lines, and appropriately.

Andy Sawford: It seems that a host of different organisations is involved in looking at the allegations—Chief Constable Creedon, the IPCC, Mr Mark Ellison QC—but would it not be better to have one properly resourced investigation with clear timetables, preferably led by the IPCC?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are several strands to the work that is taking place; it is being done in that way for very good reasons. The investigation of Operation Herne, now led by Chief Constable Creedon, with some aspects supervised by the IPCC, is looking at a wide remit in the operation of the special demonstration squad, but also at whether any criminal activities took place, and whether any appropriate action must be taken in relation to such criminal activities or misconduct by police officers. The Mark Ellison review was set up to look at the information available, to see whether specific corruption was taking place around the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder and whether all the information that should have been given to the Macpherson inquiry was given to it. In due course, there may be a need for investigations to come out of that review, but I suggest we wait until the review has completed before making that decision.

Points of Order

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend, the Foreign Secretary received a great deal of coverage for his visit to Qatar and his involvement in a conference about the future relationships of the western countries with Syria. Has there been any request for a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the outcome of the conference and the possibility of British arms sales to any of the opposition forces in Syria?

Mr Speaker: There has been no such request thus far, but as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Office has ears all over the place, and I am sure that those ears will have heard his plaintive call. We will leave it there for now.

Robert Flello: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—staying with those “ears” of the Foreign Office. I believe that, during Foreign Office questions last week, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), praised President Santos of Colombia for what he had done in respect of the Colombian peace process. On Friday, that same President accused peasant protesters in Catatumbo, in north-east Colombia, of being linked to the terrorist FARC group, which resulted in Saturday’s killing by the army and police of two innocent civilian protesters.
	The Colombian Defence Minister is coming to the United Kingdom this week, and will meet Ministers. Has there been any indication that either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will make a statement to the House? I believe that one of them should do so, in order to explain why they have not roundly condemned the behaviour of the Colombian Government in—far too frequently—naming people with whom they disagree as terrorists, after which those people are “disappeared” or killed.

Mr Speaker: Again, I have received no indication at this stage of a Minister’s intention to make a statement on the subject. However, the hon. Gentleman has aired his concern, which is now on the record. There will be all sorts of parliamentary opportunities for him to pursue the matter, and I feel sure that he will seek to avail himself of one or more of them.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone and Mr Christopher Chope, presented a Bill to prohibit the wearing of certain face coverings; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 31).

National Service Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide a system of national service for young persons; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 32).

European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and related legislation; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 33).

Young Offenders (Parental Responsibility) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the parents of young offenders to be legally responsible for their actions.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 34).

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to exclude from the United Kingdom foreign nationals found guilty of a criminal offence committed in the United Kingdom.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 35).

Asylum Seekers (Return to Nearest Safe Country) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to facilitate the transfer of asylum seekers to the safe country nearest their country of origin.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October; and to be printed (Bill 36).

Prisoners (Completion of Custodial Sentences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to require prisoners to serve in prison the full custodial sentence handed down by the court.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 37).

Fishing Grounds and Territorial Waters (Repatriation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies,
	Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for the Government to designate certain fishing grounds and territorial waters as sovereign territory of the United Kingdom outside the control of the Common Fisheries Policy.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 38).

School Governing Bodies (Adverse Weather Conditions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to require school governing bodies and headteachers to make provision to keep schools open in adverse weather conditions.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 39).

Capital Punishment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to allow for capital punishment for certain offences.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 40).

Government Departments (Amalgamation of Scotland Office, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the amalgamation of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014; and to be printed (Bill 41).

Residential Roads (Adoption by Local Highways Authorities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to require the handover of residential roads built by developers to local highways authorities within certain time periods; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November; and to be printed (Bill 42).

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of affirmative and positive action in recruitment and appointment processes; to
	amend the Equality Act 2010 to remove the special provision for political parties in relation to the selection of candidates; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 43).

Sentencing Escalator Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide that a criminal reconvicted for an offence on a second or further occasion receives a longer sentence than for the first such offence. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 44).

Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to amend the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to the permitted signatories of notices; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 45.)

BBC Licence Fee (Civil Debt) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 46.)

Smoking (Private Members’ Clubs) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Philip Hollobone, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to make provision to allow smoking in a separate ventilated room in a private members’ club if a majority of the members of the club so decide.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November; and to be printed (Bill 47.)

Mr Speaker: It is to be hoped that none of those Fridays is the hon. Gentleman’s wedding anniversary.

Margaret Thatcher Day Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Dr Julian Lewis, presented a Bill to make provision that the annual Bank Holiday Monday in late August be known as Margaret Thatcher Day.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 48.)

Department of Energy and Climate Change (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and for its functions to be absorbed into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 49.)

Married Couples (Tax Allowance) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for a tax allowance for married couples.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 50.)

Foreign Aid Ring-Fencing (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for foreign aid and development not to be linked to a specific percentage of Gross National Income, but to be set yearly, by Parliament, in relation to need.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 51.)

Charitable Status for Religious Institutions Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for a presumption that religious institutions meet the public benefit test for charitable status.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 52.)

Same Sex Marriage (Referendum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on whether same sex marriage should be allowed.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 53.)

Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Conor Burns, Richard Drax and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the cessation of subsidies for the development of wind farms.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 54.)

Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and Removal of Alleged Terrorists Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for an application to the Council of Europe to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and to deport alleged terrorists subject to approval by the British courts.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 55.)

Peter Bone: That is my wedding anniversary.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession (Labour Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for restrictions on the residence in the UK of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals to continue.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 56.)

BBC Privatisation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation by providing shares in the Corporation to all licence fee payers.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 57.)

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brad, Dr Julian Lewis and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision for the abolition of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and its responsibilities to be allocated to other Departments of State.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September; and to be printed (Bill 58.)

Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of a Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister is temporarily or permanently incapacitated.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November; and to be printed (Bill 59.)

United Kingdom (Withdrawal from the European Union) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the Government to give notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 60.)

Asylum (Time Limit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to require that asylum claims in the United Kingdom be lodged within three months of the claimant’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and that persons who have already entered the United Kingdom and wish to make an asylum claim must do so within three months of the passing of this Act.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 61.)

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to taxpayer-funded benefits.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 62.)

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell and Mr Graham Brady, presented a Bill to make provision for criminal sanctions against those who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 63.)

Sexual Impropriety in Employment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to require that claims by employees alleging sexual impropriety be limited to cases where the alleged misconduct is contrary to the criminal law and has been reported to the police.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July; and to be printed (Bill 64.)

Collection of Nationality Data Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Mr Douglas Carswell and Dr Julian Lewis, presented a Bill to require the collection and publication of information relating to the nationality of those in receipt of benefits and of those to whom national insurance numbers are issued.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 65.)

Foreign Nationals (Access to Public Services) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Adam Afriyie, presented a Bill to restrict access by foreign nationals to United Kingdom public services for which no charge is made.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October; and to be printed (Bill 66.)

House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Brady and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to provide for a maximum limit on the number of Peers entitled to vote in the House of Lords, and to provide for a moratorium on new appointments.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July; and to be printed (Bill 67.)

Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell, Dr Julian Lewis, Conor Burns and Richard Drax, presented a Bill to restrict the height, number, location and subsidies of wind turbines situated offshore within 20 miles of the coast.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 68.)

Employment Opportunities Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies and Mr Douglas Carswell, presented a Bill to introduce more freedom, flexibility and opportunity for those seeking employment in the public and private sectors; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 69.)

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Peter Bone, on behalf of Mr Christopher Chope, supported by Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Peter Bone, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Mr Douglas Carswell,
	Mr Graham Brady, Dr Julian Lewis, Martin Vickers, Adam Afriyie and Mr Stewart Jackson, presented a Bill to require an independent audit of the benefits and costs of UK membership of the European Union.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 70.)

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to provide that certain offences committed towards members of the armed forces shall be treated as aggravated; to prohibit discrimination against individuals in terms of provision of goods and services on the grounds that they are members of the armed forces; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 71.)

Train Companies (Minimum Fares) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to require train companies to offer customers the cheapest available fare as a first option; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 72.)

Lobbyists (Registration of Code of Conduct) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to establish a public register of organisations and individuals that carry out lobbying of Parliament, the Government and local authorities for financial gain; to introduce a code of conduct for those on the register; to introduce sanctions for non-registration and non-compliance with the code of conduct; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 73.)

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to make provision about the meeting by the United Kingdom of the target for official development assistance (ODA) to constitute 0.7 per cent of gross national income; to make provision for independent verification that ODA is spent efficiently and effectively; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 74.)

Jobs Guarantee Scheme (Research) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into a scheme designed to provide guaranteed employment for those aged 18 to 24 and those aged 25 and over who have been in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for one year or for two years; to require the Secretary of State to report the results of the research to the House of Commons within six months of completion; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 75.)

Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision for an offence in respect of supplies of specialist printing equipment and related materials; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July; and to be printed (Bill 76) with explanatory notes (Bill 76-EN).

Local Government (Review of Decisions) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Charlie Elphicke presented a Bill to make provision about the procedure for conducting investigations under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974; and to make provision for cases where an authority to which that Part applies takes a decision that affects the holding of an event for a reason relating to health or safety.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September; and to be printed (Bill 77) with explanatory notes (Bill 77-EN).

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Extension of Powers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Andy Sawford presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to enable it to regulate employment agencies in all sectors of the economy; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 78.)

Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Andy Sawford presented a Bill to prohibit the use of zero hours employment contracts.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014; and to be printed (Bill 79.)

Football Governance Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Damian Collins, supported by Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr John Whittingdale, Penny Mordaunt, Jim Sheridan, Mr Adrian Sanders and Philip Davies, presented a Bill to reform the governance of football in England to increase transparency and accountability; to ensure fair financial dealings between professional football clubs and their supporters; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November; and to be printed (Bill 80.)

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

[Relevant documents: The Second Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, Draft Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, HC 1003, and the Government response, Cm 8621.]
	Second Reading

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Unlike every other Northern Ireland Bill of recent years, the legislation before the House this afternoon is not being rushed through to resolve a crisis, to deal with security matters or to revive collapsed institutions. Today, we are considering a new kind of Bill for Northern Ireland: a Bill for more normal times—times in which Northern Ireland’s position as part of the United Kingdom is settled on the basis of consent; we have a stable and inclusive devolved Government at Stormont; and the focus is now very much on the politics of delivery.
	Many of the measures in the Bill—in contrast to previous legislation—have been prepared in the light of public consultation, followed by pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and his Committee for the seriousness and diligence with which they approached their task of scrutinising this legislation. Several aspects of the Bill have been improved in response to their recommendations.
	So the context for this Bill is much more stable than that for previous Northern Ireland-related legislation. Devolved government is well established and the Northern Ireland institutions have been running continuously since 2007. In May, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister published an ambitious programme to address sectarian divisions, including dismantling all peace walls within 10 years. Just 10 days ago, they, I and the Prime Minister signed a substantial economic pact to help Northern Ireland compete in the global race for jobs and investment. The agreement reflects the maturing relationship between the Government and the Executive, and it will see the two Administrations working more closely together than ever before on crucial issues such as business access to finance, improving infrastructure, and supporting research and development.
	Of course, last week Northern Ireland also played host to the highly successful G8 summit—something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. The Prime Minister’s decision to bring the G8 to County Fermanagh could not have been more fully vindicated. Lough Erne provided a spectacular backdrop for the meeting of eight of the most powerful people in the world. The summit was a great opportunity to showcase the best of the new Northern Ireland, which is a great place to invest and a great place to visit. A highly effective policing operation delivered the most peaceful G8 that anyone can remember. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partner agencies, including the Garda Siochana, for all their work in making that possible and for their continuing vigilance against the terrorist threat that remains so severe in Northern Ireland.
	The Bill makes a number of institutional changes. The measures do not reopen the political settlement enshrined in the Belfast agreement or its successors, but I believe they will improve the way that politics works in Northern Ireland in a number of significant ways. For example, the Bill will open the way for more transparency about political donations, it will modernise the way that elections are run and it will see an end to dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons.
	Let me take the points about transparency first. As the House may well be aware, Northern Ireland is subject to different transparency rules on political donation from the rest of the UK. The concern has always been that the publication of donor names could deter people from making political donations because of fear of violent reprisal. Let me be clear that the Government’s ultimate goal is full transparency, with the rules in Northern Ireland being brought into line with the rest of the UK but, having considered the matter carefully, we have concluded that the security situation has not improved sufficiently to enable us to do that and that it is not yet right to start publishing donor names.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking an intervention so early in her speech. The Secretary of State began with words with which no one could disagree. She said that the Bill is happening in more normal times in Northern Ireland; I could not agree more. She proceeded to talk about the G8 summit, which has been a huge success, and I thank her for expressing appreciation of the PSNI and the Garda Siochana. Will she take into account the fact that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want the anonymity of political donations to be removed and want transparency? What justification is there for keeping that anonymity in more normal times for Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I share the goal of those who want to see the extension of the GB regime to Northern Ireland, but, as I have said, I feel that the time is not right for that because the security situation has not improved enough since the rules were first devised. It is a pity, but the Bill will enable us to make progress towards the ultimate goal, which the hon. Lady and I both support.
	Clauses 1 and 2 will enable us to make progress towards exactly the sort of normalisation that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) wants to see. They will give the Government the power to use secondary legislation to increase transparency gradually, stage by stage. As a first stage, in response to the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we propose to move as swiftly as possible to the publication of draft secondary legislation, if the Bill passes all its parliamentary stages.

Nigel Dodds: On the question of people being in support or not in support of greater transparency—we certainly support greater transparency—will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Electoral Commission, as well as the Social Democratic and Labour party, preferred option 3 in the Government’s option paper? It said that there were
	“concerns…about the risk of intimidation of donors which justified withholding identities”.
	This is not just a party political point; the independent Electoral Commission reached that conclusion, which is in line with the Government’s proposals.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has expressed support for a number of the provisions in the Bill. We have listened carefully to the commission in preparing the Bill, given the impact that the commission has on the running of elections and the mechanics of politics in Northern Ireland.
	If the Bill passes all its stages, we envisage that secondary legislation will cover matters such as the number and amount of donations, the type of donor—that is, whether they are individual or business donors—the date of the donation and whether it came from a Irish source.
	Clauses 3 to 5 are a key part of the Bill and will ban the holding of dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons. That has been a matter of concern in Northern Ireland for some years and the committee formed prior to the 2006 St Andrews talks agreed that dual mandates should be phased out. Further concern was expressed during the MPs’ expenses crisis, including by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Most important of all, an end to double-jobbing was an important commitment made in the 2010 Conservative manifesto for Northern Ireland. Clauses 3 and 5 will enable us to keep the promises we made to the electorate in 2010.

Paul Goggins: I fully support clause 3, but will the Secretary of State explain why she is making arrangements for Members of the House of Commons to be disqualified from membership of the Assembly, but not making similar arrangements for Members of the House of Lords? I know from personal experience that many Members of the House of Lords from Northern Ireland do an excellent job; the question is whether they can do that job and be Members of the Assembly. The Government have decided that Members of the House of Commons should not be Assembly Members; why is it okay for Members of the House of Lords?

Theresa Villiers: The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, and his position is supported by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I reflected carefully on the matter and, in the end, we decided not to go down that route because we feel that the issues are simply not as strong in relation to the House of Lords. It has always been a different type of Chamber, where people are involved in alternative jobs and careers; there is not the same degree of public concern about dual mandates with the House of Lords; and the lack of a constituency and responsibilities for Members of the House of Lords also provides a reason to distinguish them from Members of the House of Commons. We will listen to the debates in this House and in the other place with an open mind, and if the Lords themselves wish us to act on this, of course we will consider their views carefully, but we believe that the focus of the legislation should be the key cause of concern in Northern Ireland, and that is dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons.

David Simpson: Surely there is a degree of hypocrisy when we have Members from one party who claim all the expenses they can get their hands on but who do not even attend this House?

Theresa Villiers: The Democratic Unionist party has strong views on these matters—[Hon. Members: “So did your party in your manifesto.”]—but they are not relevant to the Bill. No doubt, hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise those concerns as the debate continues, and I am sure that, on a future occasion, the whole House will have the opportunity to express a view on the status quo regarding parliamentary allowances and what changes should be made.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State clarify, for the benefit of the whole House, whether Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly can also sit in the House of Lords? Is there a precedent that the Secretary of State is following, or are we just making it up as we go along for Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: There is no legislative ban on Members of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament being Members of the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is seeking to introduce legislation on dual mandates in the Welsh Assembly and the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not taken that step. We believe that there is a case for looking specifically at Northern Ireland, where this has arisen as a problem. The Committee on Standards in Public Life commented that the issue was particularly entrenched in relation to Northern Ireland; that is why it was the subject of the manifesto commitment relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but not other Assemblies.

Gregory Campbell: In her elaboration on the Bill’s provisions on dual mandates, the Secretary of State has not mentioned, alluded to or expanded on the cost implications of proceeding with ending dual mandates.

Theresa Villiers: No, I have not expounded on the cost implications, but I certainly do not believe that a ban on dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons would add significantly to the cost of politics in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State described dual mandates as a problem, but during the difficult years of the peace process it was absolutely essential that Members of the House who were in leadership positions took seats in the Assembly to help it through those initial years. It is therefore regrettable that she described it as a problem: it was part of the solution, in terms of moving Northern Ireland politics forward. Thankfully, we have moved on, but let us not look back in retrospect and say that it was a bad thing.

Theresa Villiers: I would certainly agree that there are a number of reasons why there were more dual mandates in relation to Northern Ireland than for other parts of the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there may have been justified reasons for that at
	the time. However, things have moved on, and it is a greater sign of normalisation that, arguably, what might have been a need or justification in the past is no longer relevant today.
	In response to a recommendation on double-jobbing from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the Bill bans double-jobbing in the Assembly and the lower House of the Irish Parliament to maintain parity. I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting that issue.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Secretary of State comment on double-jobbing between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Lords, and double-jobbing in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Seanad Eireann, the upper House to the Dail?

Theresa Villiers: As I have said, we do not see the same pressing issues applying in relation to double-jobbing with the House of Lords, and that applies equally to the upper House of the Irish Parliament.
	Clause 6 will enable the Assembly to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly, subject to consent from Westminster. There is widespread acceptance that Northern Ireland has high numbers of elected representatives. Scotland, with a population of just over 5 million elects 129 MSPs, but Northern Ireland elects 108 MLAs to represent just 1.8 million people. While there were perhaps good reasons for that when the institutions were set up, we feel that the case has now been made for change.
	As yet, there is no cross-party agreement on the appropriate size of the reduction in the number of MLAs, and I certainly hope that Northern Ireland’s political leadership can reach a settled view on this as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Bill moves things forward by enabling such a reduction to take place without further primary legislation. The Bill also contains a number of provisions allowing us to update the rules on electoral administration.

Chris Ruane: Electoral registration rates in Northern Ireland are at something like 70%—the lowest they have ever been, and the lowest rate anywhere in the UK—after 10 years of individual electoral registration. Will the Secretary of State use the Bill to redress that imbalance, and what is her view of the fact that if 30% of the public are not on the electoral register, people do not have a functioning democracy?

Theresa Villiers: We have taken action outside the scope of the Bill to do the necessary work to update the content of the electoral register. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it needs to be updated, and we have set aside funding to enable that to take place over the coming months.
	The Bill deals with issues such as performance standards for electoral registration officers; residence requirements for voting; the canvass form; and declarations by overseas voters. Clause 7 introduces five-year fixed terms for the Assembly from now on, and moves the date of the next Assembly election to 2016. When the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was debated in 2010, concern was expressed that a general election in May 2015 would overshadow polls for the UK’s devolved Assemblies scheduled for the same day and cause voter confusion. The decision was taken to extend the terms of the
	Scottish Parliament and of the Welsh Assembly. Lord Wallace, speaking on behalf of the Government, indicated in the debate in the other House that the Government would consider a similar extension for the Northern Ireland Executive after consideration of the triple poll of May 2011. The Bill now brings the Northern Ireland institutions into line with the approach adopted for Scotland and Wales, avoiding the clash with the 2015 general election and making future clashes much less likely.
	Clauses 8 and 9 give the Northern Ireland Justice Minister the same security of tenure as other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. This reflects cross-party negotiations that led to the agreement in the Assembly on the method for selecting a Justice Minister and that were part of the historic agreement on the devolution of policing and justice powers.
	Clauses 10 to 12 would permit the devolution of certain arm’s length bodies without further primary legislation. These include the Human Rights Commission, the civil service commissioners and the district electoral areas commissioner. Before devolution could take place, though, there would need to be full consideration, a vote in the Assembly, and confirmation via secondary legislation approved by Parliament.
	As well as consideration of these and other measures in the Bill, I am sure our debates will give us the opportunity to reflect on what the next steps for institutional change in Northern Ireland should be. The Government do not rule out more far-reaching changes to the institutions in the future, but any future reforms would have to be consistent with the principles of power sharing and inclusivity at the heart of the Belfast agreement, and they could go ahead only if they had cross-party and cross-communal agreement.
	The perennial question for all institutions of government is how to improve delivery. A growing number of people think this could come about by facilitating the emergence of a formal Opposition within the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although MLAs of course provide regular and careful scrutiny of the Executive, the Government have been clear that they would like to see a more normal system emerge, which accommodates a Government and a formal Opposition. As yet the consensus that we would need in order to legislate has not been achieved, but I believe that the consultation that my predecessor ran last year on this has pushed the issue forward.
	I welcome the fact that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee are now looking at steps that the Assembly itself might take in this field. I certainly encourage the larger parties to be generous towards parties that might consider that they could best serve the electorate by choosing to be in opposition, or that do not have sufficient strength in the Assembly for a seat at the Executive table. As parliamentarians we recognise the democratic value of challenge to our views, even where that can be uncomfortable. Innovation often comes from those who are prepared to take on the prevailing consensus.
	In conclusion, it is a good thing that the Bill is not surrounded by the drama or the breakneck urgency of Northern Ireland Bills of the past. It offers an important set of changes, none the less. In pressing ahead with targeted improvements to the way politics works, I hope the Bill will play its part in helping to address the challenges faced by today’s Northern Ireland and its
	political leadership. Despite some welcome signs that the economy is beginning to heal, the economic climate remains difficult. As President Obama reminded us in his memorable address at the Waterfront hall in Belfast last week, there are many miles to go before Northern Ireland has the shared society we all want to see.
	The President was introduced in Belfast by 16-year-old Hannah Nelson from Methodist college, Belfast. With great composure, she told the packed hall and the global media that
	“we should not let the past pull us apart and stop us from moving forward…We need to listen to each other and we need to compromise. Most importantly, we need to clearly value each other. Peace is not easy and it takes a lot of work to make it happen.”
	Her message is one that has resonated across Northern Ireland. Sectarian division carries great risks to progress on the economy, to security, and to the general well-being of Northern Ireland’s people. It profoundly influences how the world sees Northern Ireland, not least when the tensions that it causes on flags and parading spill out on to the streets. This debate and the Bill provide us with an opportunity in this House once again to pledge our support to the people of Northern Ireland and their political leadership in their continuing efforts to build a prosperous and united community of which all of us can be proud. I commend the Bill to the House.

Vernon Coaker: This is a remarkable time for Northern Ireland and a good time for the House to discuss the Bill. The coverage of President Obama’s visit to Belfast last week and the sight of world leaders attending the G8 summit in Fermanagh were powerful, moving and hugely uplifting. Some 2,000 young people from schools across Northern Ireland were reminded that the future belongs to them and that it is their attitude and decisions that will take us forward. The President’s words will serve to inspire those in the Waterfront hall and far beyond to make rhetoric a reality and to deliver progress for the next generation.
	From a Northern Ireland perspective, the G8 summit was everything we had all hoped it would be. I again congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on their work and their foresight in deciding to hold such a prestigious international event in County Fermanagh. Indeed, the Prime Minister told us last week that each of the world leaders commented on how incredible it was that such a summit could take place in Northern Ireland, and in the most tranquil and beautiful surroundings of Lough Erne.
	Thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, their colleagues from other police forces in the UK, and An Garda Siochana, the G8 met safely and securely and the accompanying protests took place peacefully and respectfully. The people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in this House and in Stormont can rightly be proud of what that showed the world last week. I know that everyone in this House and right across the United Kingdom and Ireland share that pride and that sense of success and achievement. It is in that context that we are discussing the Bill today and not, as was so often the case before, in a time of crisis.
	Of course, as the Secretary of State suggested, and as Members know, there is more to come. We are halfway through Derry/Londonderry’s year as UK city of culture. I spent a great weekend there at the start of this month,
	visiting the newly developed Tower museum, which charts the city’s incredible history, the London street art gallery, which showcases the work of emerging artists, a moving exhibition showing images of Derry during the troubles and the new Shirt Factory art project. I also attended my first Ulster championship Gaelic football match, between Down and Derry, although my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will remind me that I did not bring the home team much luck.

Margaret Ritchie: My hon. Friend’s visit brought greater luck to me, as MP for South Down, because Down won that day, but unfortunately they did not win yesterday against Donegal. I look forward to the day when they will do better through the back-door mechanism.

Vernon Coaker: I hesitate to get involved in discussions about Gaelic football fixtures, but my next remark was going to be that the result will have pleased my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
	Everyone knows that challenges remain and that there remains much work to be done. The threat from dissident republican groups remains high, and those who seek to destroy the peace and progress are still intent on carrying out their murderous activities. It is only the bravery, dedication and skill of the police, army technical officers and the security services that have prevented the terrorists from succeeding. The loyalist flag protests have shown that there is still work to be done, so we cannot be complacent. I join the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable in calling for a calm and peaceful summer.
	It is in that context that we are considering the Bill today. Let me say something I have said many times before: the Opposition are committed to working with the Government in a bipartisan way where possible. When we believe that the Government are acting in the best interests of Northern Ireland, we will support them. When we disagree, we have a duty to challenge them and hold them to account.
	I must say that in some respects I am disappointed with the Bill, not so much because of what is in it, but because of what is not. “Miscellaneous” suggests that all that is needed is some tidying up by Westminster and that it is a case of putting forward some minor amendments and small adjustments. Indeed, most of the Bill’s provisions have been discussed with the Northern Ireland parties and command general, if not universal, support. In principle, we support the ending of dual mandates, the extension of the Assembly’s term—temporarily and then permanently—giving security of tenure to the Justice Minister and devolving power on the size of the Assembly. We want to move to full transparency and accountability in political donations. Clearly, we will look at the detail of all the proposals in Committee, but by and large they make sense.
	However, the Secretary of State will know that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont is looking at the size of the Assembly, the number of Executive Departments, designation, the composition of the Executive, and provision for opposition. These are difficult and sensitive issues. The principles of power
	sharing and inclusivity are fundamental, but there is an acceptance that the system could be improved and there are demands for more accountability and more rigorous scrutiny of the Executive.
	As a precursor to the Bill, the previous Secretary of State last year launched a review of the operation of the Assembly during a speech in which he criticised the Assembly and the Executive. I said at the time that that criticism was largely unwarranted and unnecessary and suggested that the Government work in partnership with the Executive and the Assembly to look at how they and the Northern Ireland Office could work more effectively, individually and collectively. To be fair to the current Secretary of State, she has taken an approach more in line with that thinking. However, I worry that in some respects she has gone too far the other way and has not engaged with some of the issues.
	I have said before that devolution should not mean disengagement. The Bill gives the House a chance to put its views appropriately and constructively and I hope that, as the debate goes through the House, the Government will reflect on how they could take that opportunity.
	In replying to the debate, will the Minister of State tell us what discussions he has had on the progress of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s work? Have the Government had any requests from that body or the Executive for the inclusion of measures that have not been included in the Bill? These are difficult and challenging areas and it will be hard to find agreement, but I sense from everywhere that there is an increasing desire to make progress a little more quickly—something, as I have said, that will undoubtedly be discussed in Committee in more detail.
	Many other issues affect people in Northern Ireland, of course, and there is demand for politicians here and in Stormont to concentrate on building jobs and growth, tackling youth unemployment and creating opportunity. Of course, there are also the continuing challenges in health, education and welfare. Many of the decisions are devolved, but there is a role for the House to play in supporting the Executive as they seek to build peace, progress and prosperity.
	The Government should also remember that they have a huge responsibility for economic and welfare decisions that affect people in Northern Ireland just as much as they do people in Gedling, Chipping Barnet or Hemel Hempstead. Is there nothing that the Bill could have contained that looked at the impact of Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government’s economic and welfare policies on Northern Ireland, given the particular circumstances of a society emerging from conflict?
	We know also that great strides have been taken to encourage business, tourism and economic progress. Indeed, later this week, alongside the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in his capacity as Finance Minister, I am meeting a range of business organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Northern Ireland chambers of commerce, the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association and others, to take forward plans for a small business Saturday. We need to do all we can to help business and build prosperity in communities where there is a high level of economic inactivity and a lack of opportunities, which create such a sense of despair and hopelessness.

Theresa Villiers: Perhaps I can provide the shadow Secretary of State with some reassurance. The proposals agreed in the economic package between the Executive and the Government are meant to complement the institutional changes in the Bill. We will work hard to deliver on those, including with a major G8-themed inward investment conference in October and, hopefully, the prompt extension of start-up loans to Northern Ireland, on which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is making an announcement today.

Vernon Coaker: Obviously, we all hope that those measures are successful. As I have said, I thought the package announced by the Government a few days ago was a step in the right direction. However, I am talking about the sense of urgency needed to accelerate progress and saying that the Government here in London should recognise the huge impact that Treasury decisions have on Northern Ireland, which has particular circumstances as it emerges from conflict. The Secretary of State will know, from hon. Members here and representatives she meets in Northern Ireland, of the real concern about the impact in many communities of joblessness as well as the Government’s welfare changes, the impact of which the Government need to reflect carefully on.
	Huge progress has been made on policing and justice. I welcome the changes made to ensure security of tenure for the Justice Minister. I encouraged the Government to legislate on that more than a year ago, and I am glad that the relevant measures are included in the Bill. David Ford, the current incumbent, does a good job in tough circumstances, and I pay tribute to him. Further to policing and justice, I will continue to raise the very serious issue of the National Crime Agency’s inability to operate in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. He said that the Bill contains measures that will clearly have broad support in all parts of the House. He is right, however, to argue with some urgency about the need to return to provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that are still not in operation, and have no likelihood of being so, in Northern Ireland. That is very good news for criminals and very bad news for the people of Northern Ireland.

Vernon Coaker: The fact that the National Crime Agency cannot operate in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the UK is a source of great regret to us all. I hope that as we go through the Bill we can look at ways in which we may continue to support the Secretary of State in putting pressure on the Home Secretary to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to get the legislative consent necessary for the agency’s remit to extend to Northern Ireland.
	The Executive’s publication of their strategy on community sharing and integration is to be welcomed. However, that does not mean that there is no longer a role for Westminster and the Government to play in helping to build a shared future across Northern Ireland, with no community left behind. I would have liked the Bill to include a measure to consolidate the work of the Executive and, most importantly, of the thousands of individuals and organisations doing hugely important work to bring people together in friendship, understanding and co-operation.
	Some weeks ago I spoke to a group of students from Queen’s university and the university of Ulster. I was struck by their confidence, ability and experience. Let us be clear: these young people, aged 18, 19 and 20, were not untouched by sectarianism. I was genuinely surprised to hear from one very bright and articulate student that the first time she had, in any real sense, met someone from the other side was when she went to university. We have a duty to ensure that in future 18, 19 and 20-year-olds do not have to leave home to meet their neighbours.
	The Bill contains provisions relating to arm’s-length bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which does important and valuable work. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State outlined what role she sees for it in future and shared her views on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
	On the electoral registration provisions, I add a note of caution. We need to get the balance right between ensuring that as many people as possible who are entitled to do so engage in our democratic process while protecting against the kind of electoral fraud that is an affront to that process.
	In this Second Reading debate, the main point that I want to make to the Government is that they should reflect on whether anything more could be included in the Bill that would help to build peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am always glad, and often surprised, at how keen people in Northern Ireland are for us to visit to hear their stories and share in some of their experiences. Nowhere has this been more evident than in engaging with victims and survivors. It is always an incredibly humbling and emotional experience to speak with those who have lost loved ones. The heartbreaking stories that I have heard have moved and affected me greatly, as I am sure they have many others.
	I have met dozens of victims and survivors, some with organisations, some individually, right across Northern Ireland. Some months ago I spent time with a woman whose two brothers had joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary together on the same day—a very proud one for her family. One of them was killed in a car bomb just a few months later, and just as she was beginning to recover from that, the other was killed in a mortar attack on a police station, 15 years after his brother. It devastated her and her family. I also met the mother of a young girl aged 12 who died in her father’s arms just yards from her home after being shot by a soldier. There was no explanation of or justification for either of those events.
	These are very difficult and painful things to speak about, but we have had many difficult and painful conversations in Northern Ireland, and we need to have this one. Is there nothing we can propose in the Bill that would help this process and take it forward? The Government say that there is no consensus on the way forward and therefore no possibility of agreement. In essence, that it is to do with them. I fundamentally disagree, as Members will know. Dealing with the past—the legacy of the troubles—is expressly a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. It cannot act alone, of course, and I have consistently said that we need a comprehensive and inclusive process with victims and survivors at the centre. The last time we debated Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked me what I meant by that. I repeat today that the Government, in partnership
	with the Irish Government, have a duty to lead, but not to prescribe. They must create a vehicle through which these issues can be discussed and resolved. Of course, that will take time and it will not be easy, but the prize will be worth it. Victims and survivors are not afraid to talk about the past; the Governments should not be either.
	Just last week, I went to St Ethelburga’s church, which was blown up by the IRA in the Bishopsgate bombing in 1993, where I saw the Theatre of Witness production, “From the Rubble”. It was an incredibly powerful performance that bore witness to the wounds of the past, which are still visible to many in Northern Ireland. The performers were not acting, but telling their own real stories. One said that we need to have an eye on the future, as well as an eye on the past. We cannot ignore the past, but we must not be trapped by it either.
	That is why I am saddened that the Government cannot find a way in the Bill to allow the issues of the past to be discussed and addressed, so that consensus may emerge. The legacy of the past has to be dealt with and the Government must consider the impact that it has on the victims, the survivors and everyone in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the Opposition spokesman for his moving words, for his genuine concern for the victims of the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland and for the time he has taken to meet many of the victims. He speaks of the British and Irish Governments taking the lead. Does he accept that it is not just a matter of taking the lead? We have heard a lot from our Government by way of apology and inquiry, but precious little from the Irish Government, despite the evidence that Irish Ministers were involved in arming the IRA at the beginning of the troubles and the growing evidence of collusion between Irish state forces and paramilitary organisations. If the Irish Government are to take a lead, they need to accept that they too have a responsibility to acknowledge the wrongdoing of the past.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me. I appreciate them when we are discussing such a sensitive matter. I say to him that everyone needs to be involved in the process of coming to an understanding of what happened and of how we can move forward.
	Westminster still matters to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland must matter to Westminster. The Bill gives the House of Commons the chance to demonstrate that through our deliberations. The UK Government should work ever closer with the devolved Administration to do the best that they can for Northern Ireland and its people. The key message from the peace process that we should share with the world is that an end to conflict is only the start of the peace. Along with the Irish Government, and with the support of the European Union and the United States Administration, we must continue to provide support and encouragement as Northern Ireland continues to move forward. That is our responsibility, that is our role and that is how we will build peace, progress and prosperity in every community in Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Government for putting the Bill out to pre-legislative scrutiny. Analysing it was an interesting task for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I thank the Secretary of State and Minister of State for taking on board a number of our recommendations and for considering the other points that we made. I thank all members of the Committee, many of whom are present in the Chamber, for their hard work and for the benefit of their experience, particularly of those who are from Northern Ireland.
	I do not want to single out one political party that gave evidence to the Committee, but it demonstrates the considerable extent to which things have moved on in Northern Ireland that the formal evidence session that we held in Belfast with Sinn Fein was, as I understand it, the first time that that political party had given public evidence to a Committee of the House of Commons. I think that is a significant step forward. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee in Belfast and in Westminster. As those on the Front Benches have said, things in Northern Ireland have moved on enormously.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to progress, with members of Sinn Fein giving evidence to the Committee. Does he agree that that is a good and significant step forward, and certainly beats impeding police officers in the course of their duty in Belfast at the weekend during an Orange Order parade?

Laurence Robertson: I agree entirely. It is sometimes a case of two steps forward and one step back. I was in Belfast this morning and the newspapers were full of that incident in which a person was injured. Two weeks ago, members of the Committee visited Washington and spoke to a number of people. There was an overwhelming feeling that much had been sorted out in Northern Ireland, but the incident at the weekend, flag protests and the murder of Mr David Black last November do nothing to attract investment. They deter investment, and that is a tragedy. I hope we can move forward more smoothly.
	We made a great deal of progress in attracting Sinn Fein to give evidence to the Committee. I would go further and say, as we did at the time, that it is time that members of that party took their seats in this Parliament so that they can come and make their case here. They claim they do the job anyway, but they do not. They do a job, but they do not do the job of parliamentarians, even though they accept the expenses and allowances that go with it. We ought to be able to move forward a little more in that respect.

Jim Shannon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares the concern of many of us on these Benches and in the Province that the onus is on elected representatives not only to obey the law, but to do so in public. What we saw at the weekend was a travesty of the law: two elected representatives, one of whom sits on the policing board, clearly flouted the law. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is an onus on elected representatives from Sinn Fein to be more observant of the law?

Laurence Robertson: Everybody has to observe the law. The law cannot be applied differently to different people, regardless of who they purport to represent, so I do not disagree with a word the hon. Gentleman has said.
	We are in a better place than we were. As the Secretary of State said, it is a welcome change to be considering legislation relating to Northern Ireland that is not a desperately urgent response to a terrible incident. On at least a couple of occasions while I have been a Member, the House has been recalled during the recess to consider such a matter urgently. It is right to move things forward in a more measured way if possible. The Committee looked at the Bill in great detail and supports much of what it proposes. I will discuss three or four issues in my speech, which will be fairly brief.
	On donations, the Committee welcomes the move towards normalisation. The objective has to be to move Northern Ireland towards being a normal society and a normal democracy. We have some way to go, but we are slowly getting there. We felt that we ought to move quickly from October 2014 to full publication of who has made donations. We understand that there is a security issue. A number of witnesses and members of the Committee said that there is a risk for people who stand for Parliament, Assembly or council; for those who support them by delivering leaflets, canvassing or putting up posters; and for those who sign nomination papers. The question was whether donating money constitutes a different risk. We were not persuaded that it does, so we want to see greater progress on the publication of donations.
	We said, though, that those decisions had to be taken in the light of the security situation. We wanted the Bill to state that the Secretary of State should consult the respective security services before taking such a decision, but she has decided not to include that. I mention that because although we recognise that there are problems, in principle we want to move towards a more normal politics in Northern Ireland in which there is less suspicion, and if everything is out in the open, surely that is a better way forward than the way we have been going so far. We also insisted, however, that anyone or any organisation that made donations prior to the change or notification that those donations would become public should remain anonymous, because when they gave those donations, they depended on that anonymity.
	We support the ending of dual mandates. In fact, we would go further, as has been alluded to already. We think that Members of the Assembly should not also be Members of the House of Lords, the European Parliament or the Senate in the Republic of Ireland. I understand fully the points made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has left the Chamber momentarily, about how important it was at the time for experienced politicians to take the peace process forward in Northern Ireland—that was certainly essential —but we have moved on. Before the Assembly was restarted, many decisions about Northern Ireland were taken upstairs in Committee by statutory instrument, which was a very unsatisfactory way of governing Northern Ireland.
	As Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson, I attended many of those sessions. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) was often the Minister. Because many Northern Ireland Members had the additional burden of advancing the peace process in their constituencies, many were the times when, through
	no fault of their own, not a single one of them could attend, and these were Committees deciding very important things for Northern Ireland. It was very unsatisfactory, but we have moved on, and people cannot be in two places at once. There is also the potential for a conflict of interest if somebody sits on two legislative bodies. We would have gone further than the Government, and we would also apply the same rules to Scotland and Wales, although I think that Wales is moving in that direction anyway.
	The Select Committee welcomed the changes to the appointment and tenure of the Justice Minister—we feel that the Ministry should be more secure—and the fact that taking the position will count against the number of Ministries a party can hold, but we are a little concerned about what will happen if agreement cannot be reached. We urge the Government to seek a way forward when that happens. Could the Justice Minister be appointed another way without bringing everything down? The appointment of the Justice Minister under a d’Hondt system might be possible, although I understand the sensitivities around that. Nevertheless, we identified that as a potential problem; it has not happened, and I hope it never will, but there is a potential problem.
	We disagreed with the Government over delaying the next Assembly elections to 2016. We think that people in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of voting in two or even three elections, where necessary, and who is to say that the general election will be held in May 2015? We have legislated for it—although I voted against it—but who is to say that the coalition will last that long? It might do, but who is to say that elections will come in neat five-year terms after that? It might be the case, but it might not, so we did not see the need to change that arrangement, although we accepted that it was not necessarily the main part of the Bill.
	We held many discussions about government and opposition, and a number of witnesses said that they wanted to see an opposition developing in Northern Ireland. I think I am representing the Committee’s views accurately here, but it is certainly my own view that we have to allow the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland to come forward with their own proposals and solutions to the situation. The Assembly was created in the way it was for a reason, and we all know what that reason was. We must bear in mind the Good Friday agreement requirements for a shared future, and it is difficult to come up with a solution to the problem. We recognise that there is an issue, but we feel that the solution ought to be home grown and brought to this House in the form of a proposal.
	We hold a similar view on the size of the Assembly. This is not so much about the fact that 108 Assembly Members represent 1.8 million people; it is more about the fact that there are six Members of the Assembly for every Westminster constituency. Again, we know why that was done—it made the maths easier at the time—but things can move on. We should not throw away the principles of the Belfast agreement, but I do not see why we cannot, with consent, move forward on certain aspects of it.
	That is a collection of some of the Select Committee’s thoughts. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee for their work and for their proposals, and to thank the Government for listening to what we have had to say. I wish the Bill well.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in welcoming the Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, heralded it as a normalisation Bill. We heard about the Bill in many meetings with him and others at the Northern Ireland Office, and we were led to believe that it would contain all sorts of wonderful, amazing things for Northern Ireland. Yes, it represents progress, but it is certainly not as far-reaching as was originally envisaged. It is certainly not as ambitious as the then Secretary of State suggested when he became the holder of that office.
	The then Secretary of State said many other things, too, and I shall deal with those in a moment. One such matter was allowances for Sinn Fein Members. We have talked about dual mandates, but the issues of non-representation and the non-fulfilment of mandates are equally important. The right hon. Gentleman promised that not a single Conservative Member in this new Parliament would dream of sustaining the position whereby Members who did not take their seats could claim money and expenses. I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity to consider that matter further.
	I welcome the fact that we are debating the Bill at a time when there is no crisis in Northern Ireland relating to the Assembly or the Executive. On many occasions, we have had to debate all the stages of a Bill in one day to deal with the suspension of the Assembly, with some other crisis, or with its reinstatement. Thankfully, those days have gone and we now have relative stability. Indeed, we take that stability for granted. The very fact that we are debating an extension of the current Assembly’s term for another year, and fixed terms of five years thereafter, is in indication of the progress that has been made. Who would have previously imagined that we would be discussing these proposals here today? People would have said that we were living in fantasy land if they had been suggested before. Previous Assemblies did not have this kind of stability, and even the current one that was set up under the 1998 legislation did not have it until 2007. So we have a lot to be grateful for, and we should reflect on the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, but we should not take it for granted. We must remember that there is still work to be done to ensure that that stability continues.
	The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have mentioned that we are debating these matters against the background of a propitious event. The hosting of the G8 summit by Northern Ireland was enormously successful, and tribute has rightly been paid to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces in the Irish Republic and to the help given by other British police and security services. We have had great news, too, in recent days with announcements of significant numbers of fantastic, good-quality, high-value jobs for Northern Ireland. All those announcements are highly significant. As has also been pointed out, however, major challenges remain despite the progress that has been made. The challenge posed by dissident terrorists and other republican groups is significant. The police and security services deserve all our gratitude and our support—given in material ways—to make sure that they are ready, able and fit to combat that threat.
	It is also crucial that the political parties in Northern Ireland’s civic society continue to give their full support to policing, the courts and the rule of law. One deeply disturbing issue already alluded to in this debate is the selective approach to policing that we have seen in recent months from Sinn Fein. We have seen its members picketing outside police headquarters when certain people are arrested, protesting against certain investigations and now we have seen the incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and others, in which a Sinn Fein Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive and a Sinn Fein member of the Policing Board, Gerry Kelly, were both seen openly obstructing police and clambering on police vehicles at a peaceful parade held in my Belfast North constituency last Friday.
	Clearly, there is outrage at this loutish and hooligan behaviour. It is not the job of Assembly Members, elected representatives or members of the Policing Board to interfere in that way in the conduct of police operational matters. Holding the police to account is not, as Gerry Kelly seems to think, a question of clambering on a police vehicle and trying to stop an arrest. It is about doing the job of being a member of the Policing Board by asking questions or coming to this House, if elected to it, and asking questions; it is not about vandalism or the loutish behaviour and hooliganism that we have seen. I have written to the Chief Constable today to ask what action he is going to take to investigate fully and ensure that action is taken against those who engage in this kind of provocative and inciting behaviour, which could have resulted in serious trouble. As we saw on the night, these actions led to others getting involved in attacking the police vehicle. There are challenges that we in Northern Ireland face.
	Let me move on to the details of the Bill. It does not go as far as was first envisaged, but significant progress has been made on donations, dual mandates, the removal of some powers from the excepted category to the reserved category, and justice powers. I shall deal with each of those briefly in turn.
	The issue of political donations and loans falls into three main areas: transparency of donors, the timetable for moving to full transparency and—this is an issue that the Secretary of State only glanced over—an anomaly that will remain, despite the Bill, in that donations will still be able to be made to Northern Ireland parties from individuals and bodies outside the United Kingdom.
	This party supports in principle having as much transparency as possible when it comes to donations. There have obviously been good reasons in Northern Ireland for granting exceptions to the rules that apply to parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. Evidence about the security situation presented to the Select Committee in its investigation of this Bill cannot be set to one side. That evidence has come from not just the Unionist side, but the nationalist side and, as I mentioned in my intervention on the Secretary of State, the independent Electoral Commission. It shows that many brave individuals and businesses stepped forward during the darkest of days to make donations. They took great personal and corporate risks coming forward with donations, and their main concern was rightly—there is evidence that when the donations were discovered, these things did happen—that they would suffer personal loss, a downturn in trade and, in some cases, even physical attack. The
	intimidation was a real threat and was certainly a clear attempt to silence people and prevent them from participating in the democratic process.
	As we in Northern Ireland move forward and put the violence of the past behind us, it is right and proper that we move towards a system of donations and loans that is similar to that used in the rest of the United Kingdom. That should apply not only to transparency issues, but to all aspects of donations, such as who can donate. From 2014 onwards, why should there be any exceptions at all?
	We support the commitment in the Bill not to publish retrospectively the names of past donors. Any future reform must safeguard the trust that people in the past have placed in the system, to protect them, their families and their businesses from disclosure.

Lady Hermon: On transparency of political donations, I agree that donors to any political party were under real and significant threat in the past, but in the present changed circumstances in Northern Ireland that we enjoy by and large—thank goodness—will the right hon. Gentleman say, without disclosing their identities and breaching confidentiality, whether it is tens, dozens or one or two donors to the Democratic Unionist party who currently feel threatened by violence?

Nigel Dodds: I can do no better than to quote the leader of my party and First Minister of Northern Ireland, who, as stated in the House of Commons Library research paper, shared the concerns of other parties, including the Ulster Unionists, in saying in evidence to the Select Committee:
	“In the past, businesses and businesses were attacked because of their association either with security forces or with one section of the community. You cannot be cavalier about these issues because they are real. Even if it did not happen, there would certainly be the perception among those who might be willing to donate that it could.”
	I will go even further and quote the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for South Down—[Hon. Members: “South Belfast.”] I apologise to both the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), the leader of the SDLP, who said in evidence to the Select Committee—I know he is more than capable of speaking for himself—that
	“we feel that we were particularly vulnerable…in that some of our donors felt vulnerable and threatened…Sometimes the threat is not even direct, but people are put under pressure and told, ‘You gave the SDLP £1,000 this week; we think that we are entitled to £2,000 this week’. The threat is at that level. In a situation in which there are still a handful of people moving about with guns, that threat is there.”
	I agree with the leader of the SDLP, with the leader of my party and with the Government, who have got this issue right. The Electoral Commission—an independent, not party political, view—also expressed such concerns.
	I also fully endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that the clause should be amended so as to provide that the Electoral Commission in future—from 2014 onwards, not going backwards—can disclose donor identity only where there is express consent from the donor; under the Bill as currently worded, such information can be published where there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that there was consent.
	On the timetable for moving to transparency, I listened to what the Secretary of State has said: the Bill does not implement any provision, but simply gives the power to the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation in future for achieving greater transparency. At that point, a strong degree of caution and common sense will still need to be exercised because of the continued dissident threat to which we have referred.
	The Bill states that the Electoral Commission must be consulted, but—with due respect to the commission—I think that there should also be consultation with the security forces and with the police in particular, and also with the political parties in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurance that this will not simply involve the thoughts and minds of the Electoral Commission, and that there will be a much wider consultation.

Theresa Villiers: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Of course it would be very important to consult the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others with knowledge of the security situation, but when proceeding with any transparency arrangements, we would want to consult widely with others, including the political parties.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for that undertaking. In Committee, we may return to the question of how the Bill might reflect it more clearly.
	Let me now turn to the issue of donations made by individuals and bodies outside the United Kingdom. The Select Committee made the welcome recommendation that the loophole represented by an anomaly, or special provision, should be closed. We will, of course, examine the issue in more detail during the Bill’s Committee stage.
	Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, political parties registered in Great Britain are permitted to accept donations only from UK residents and bodies. The Act extends to parties in Northern Ireland, but parties registered there may accept donations from citizens and bodies in the Irish Republic. Why was the Act brought into being? It was brought into being so that the public—the people who send us to this place—could have some degree of certainty that those who gave money to political parties had a stake in this country, and in affairs of state here. They did not want political parties to be flooded with money from people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere who had interests in the making of certain decisions, but who did not vote here, represent anyone here, or have any stake in this country other than, for instance, a commercial stake. The Act was introduced for very good reasons, yet an exception was made in the case of Northern Ireland.
	Individuals and bodies in the Republic of Ireland can donate to parties in Northern Ireland in a way that contravenes the law of that country. Worse still, however, owing to our inability to regulate donations of this kind, those individuals and bodies can be used as a front for donations from other foreign or overseas countries. The Select Committee’s recognition of that problem led it rightly to recommend that the anomaly be removed.
	Here we all are, saying that Northern Ireland should be subject to the same level of transparency in respect of donations and identity as every other part of the
	United Kingdom. We ask “Why should Northern Ireland be any different?” But why should Northern Ireland be any different when it comes to who can donate to political parties? There is no reason at all why it should. I hope that, as we consider the Bill further in the House and in Committee, Members and, in particular, the Government will look afresh at the issue. If the Government fail to close this loophole, they may rightly stand accused of giving preferential treatment to certain political parties for political reasons.
	Whatever the causes for the arguments of the past, those reasons certainly do not exist today. There should be a level playing field for all political parties in Northern Ireland. There should be the same rules for all of them, and there should be the same benefits, if possible, in terms of donations for all political parties. This anomaly was introduced for one reason: to allow Sinn Fein, and other nationalists, to get money from America, channelled into Northern Ireland via the Irish Republic. That is why this was implemented. That is the reason it was allowed, and if it is allowed to continue, that will be an indictment of this House, particularly at a time when people are so concerned about the funding of political parties.
	We support the provision to extend the term of the Assembly to 2016. We disagree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), on that point, but not because we think people in Northern Ireland will not be able to understand voting in different elections on the same day. Northern Ireland’s citizens have a long and admirable track record of being able not only to vote in different elections on the same day, but to use different electoral systems, and to do so very successfully. The terrible outcome in Scotland recently, when there was a dual election that led to thousands of spoiled ballot papers, has never happened to the same degree in Northern Ireland.
	We wanted the extension of the Northern Ireland Assembly term because it has been extended in Scotland and in Wales. In both those jurisdictions, there is now a five-year fixed term. I welcome the fact that today, in this Bill, Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, is being treated like Scotland, Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom—and quite right too, as there is no logic whatever in saying we should be treated differently. It means that, as the Secretary of State has said, when there is an Assembly election, Assembly issues will be to the fore, and when there is a Westminster election, the issues affecting this House and Westminster representation will be debated, and there will be no confusion of the two sets of issues. That is very important.

Laurence Robertson: There are, of course, two issues here: one is whether this particular Assembly term should be extended, and then whether we should move to five-year terms. The right hon. Gentleman puts a logical case for having five-year terms, but surely the Assembly did not need to be extended in this term. I think that was probably the more important point we were making.

Nigel Dodds: Actually, the reason for that is the fact that, given the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2012, we will have a clash in May 2015. That is what makes it
	imperative that action is taken in this Parliament. The dates of the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections were moved for precisely that reason. If we do not take action, in two years’ time there will be elections on the same day for Parliament and in Northern Ireland. That is why this measure has been brought forward.

Lady Hermon: May I preface my remarks by saying it is wonderful to see the right hon. Gentleman back in great form? I might not agree with half of what he is saying, but I am delighted to see him, as a great parliamentarian, back and in great form.
	May I make an imaginary journey forward to 2016, when we will—unfortunately, from my perspective—have an Assembly election? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be well aware of the fact that the Easter of 2016 will be celebrated, and that could be very divisive, as that Easter marks the centenary of a significant event. Does the right hon. Gentleman have concerns—and I do just mean concerns—about that being exploited by a particular party in Northern Ireland to its advantage?

Nigel Dodds: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her very kind remarks. It is great to be back, and there is no better occasion to be back for than this debate on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It is a great Bill and reminds me why I entered politics in the first place.
	I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but I cannot agree with her. The Easter rising centenary will be commemorated in 2016, but the Unionist perspective will be, “100 years on and still no united Ireland”. One hundred years on from the Easter rising and Ulster—Northern Ireland—is more firmly part of the United Kingdom than it has ever been.

Lady Hermon: Aren’t you glad I asked that?

Nigel Dodds: I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady asked that question. I look forward to her, like me, celebrating in 2016 and also commemorating another significant historic event in Northern Ireland—the anniversary of the Somme—on 1 July, as so many Ulster men gave their lives on the first day of that enormous battle. There will be many commemorations, centenaries and anniversaries affecting Northern Ireland in 2016 and the coming years, so I understand what she is saying. Although I do not agree with her on that point, I am sure she will respect my view on the issue.
	Let me deal briefly with the change in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, the powers will change from being in an excepted category to being in the reserved category. The Northern Ireland Assembly will, thus, be able to legislate, with the consent of the Westminster Parliament, and that is right and proper. We believe that there should be more such provisions, making it easier for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate in other areas, such as its working, the make-up of the Executive and how they are formed. Of course, this should be done on a cross-community basis and as a result of negotiation, agreement and a cross-community vote, but it would send a strong signal that more of those powers are for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to agree.
	Of course, Northern Ireland is over-represented, but we have 108 Members because the parties that supported the Belfast agreement in 1998 wanted the Assembly to be that big. We opposed that, for the reasons of over-representation that many Members are now talking about. The choice of six Members per constituency was a blatant attempt, once again, to get smaller parties that were, at that stage, in favour of the Belfast agreement into the Assembly at the expense of others. It did not work out that way because the Northern Ireland electorate had much greater common sense, voting for parties that would fight for change and reform, and for a better way forward. We achieved that, which is why we have the stability we have had since 2007.

Mark Durkan: I wish to add a little information and insight. When strand 1 was negotiated, the agreement between the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party on that holy Thursday night or early hours of Good Friday was for a 90-Member Assembly based on five-seat constituencies. What we disagreed on was whether there should also be a top-up, in either the first Assembly or, possibly, the first and second Assemblies, of an additional 10 Members that could account for smaller parties that might be under-represented because of the spread of the vote. That idea was not agreed by the UUP and, in the absence of agreement between us, Tony Blair stipulated it had to be six-Member constituencies—108 Members. None of the Northern Ireland parties proposed that.

Nigel Dodds: I think I am grateful for that explanation. Two things come out of it that are clear. First, the SDLP and the UUP still wanted a significantly larger Assembly, with more than 100 Members, no matter the form of the electoral process. [Interruption.] Certainly, initially—

Mark Durkan: Ninety—

Nigel Dodds: Ninety, plus, as I understand it, a further top-up, which would bring the figure to 100. So they wanted a significantly larger Assembly than the one we want to see nowadays. The second thing we learned from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was, once again, how much in debt we are to Tony Blair for so much in the political process, both here and in Northern Ireland! Whoever speaks for Labour will doubtless want to defend what Tony Blair did in that regard.

Oliver Colvile: Does the right hon. Gentleman also feel that John Major played a significant part in the whole process, kicking it off in the first place?

Nigel Dodds: I was not getting into the issue of credit for the peace process as a whole; I was only making reference to Tony Blair’s contribution to having a bloated Assembly in Northern Ireland. I do not think that John Major would want to be associated with that. I gladly pay tribute to John Major and others on both sides who have played a significant role in the peace process. I am glad to put that on the record.
	Without differentiation between the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland, most of its parties are on the record as supporting a reduction in the size of the Assembly. The DUP, the Alliance party, the
	UUP, the SDLP and many independent Members are in favour, but Sinn Fein is not. Let us be clear that the reason we are not getting this reduction is not because the Assembly Members all want to keep their positions and the parties all want to keep the same numbers; it is because one party, Sinn Fein, refuses to accept that, in this day and age so many years on from the 1998 agreement and St Andrews, there is no need to have 108 Members any more. Let us put the focus squarely where it belongs, just as we need to do with the “blame”, if I may put it like that, for the national security issues. Again, they are the result of one or two parties in Northern Ireland taking a particular stand.
	On the issue of dual mandates, our position is clear: they are being phased out. The Bill does not bring an end to dual mandates; the political parties in Northern Ireland are bringing an end to them. We in the DUP are certainly doing that. We made a commitment that by 2015 they would be phased out, in line with the recommendations made by the independent body—I cannot remember its name, because we had so many of these bodies at one time. That was what was said should be done, we committed to it and it is what we are doing. The Bill’s provisions outlawing dual mandates should apply to Scotland and Wales as well. I am glad to hear that the Welsh First Minister is introducing such proposals, but they should also apply to Scotland—Northern Ireland should not be unique in this regard.
	The issue of non-representation also needs to be addressed. I alluded to it at the start of my remarks and I will close with it. Although it is not a matter for legislation, it is a matter for the resolution of this House—it is a House of Commons issue. It is a scandal that there are Members elected to this House who do not do their jobs and do not carry out parliamentary activity but get expenses, allowances and money, and not just to carry out their constituency duties—through representative money they get money to campaign. The rest of us are bound by the rules of this House and are rightly accountable for our expenditure for parliamentary purposes, but these people can spend this money for party political purposes and not a word is asked about it.
	That special provision was brought in, again, under Tony Blair’s premiership. The then Secretary of State, John Reid, brought it in. It was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, as it had been by the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, and others. Sinn Fein had challenged all the way to the courts—European Courts—and had been defeated, but it was introduced as a special concession because it was argued at that time that it was necessary to bring Sinn Fein into the political process. If anyone can argue today that Sinn Fein is not in the political process, I would find it staggering. The time has now come for the House to address this issue. If we are concerned about dual mandates and about people being in two places at once, we cannot ignore the glaring issue about non-representation and a special status given to Members who do not attend. Their arrangement is actually advantageous and better than the position given to Members who do take their seats.

Mark Durkan: It is not often that I stand up to defend the former Secretary of State, John Reid, from criticism about his time in Northern Ireland but the measure on Opposition party money and the special
	terms given to Sinn Fein was actually introduced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State. He said that it was a necessary measure for the peace process. He refused to answer when asked what promise or threat made it so necessary, but confirmed that Sinn Fein could use the money for entirely different purposes from anybody else.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the glaring discrepancy in accountability arrangements for this money. That is not tolerable, because all the political parties that take their seats in this House are at a disadvantage compared with Members who do not take their seats and who can use the representative money for whatever they like.

Naomi Long: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is ironic that somebody such as me, as the sole Member from a party, has no access to such money whereas multiple Members of another party who never turn up to this place to do the work they are elected to do have access to it for policy support and development?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has been making his comeback with an amazing tour de force and has been very generous in giving way, but I gently point out that he has now been speaking for 34 minutes and quite a few of his colleagues wish to speak as well. Much as we are enjoying his speech, I am sure that he is going to give us his final words about his views on the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I have had so many weeks to ponder and consider the contents of the Bill in relative peace and quiet that I have become carried away. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). Following your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go into detail on the various issues to do with the changes to the rules of court, sharing biometric data, equality and so on—not that I had very much to say about them.
	The Bill is relatively modest, but it is significant in the context in which it has been introduced. It is significant in that it moves things forward in Northern Ireland, which is important because when all else is stripped away, the most important thing for those of us who represent the Province here in this House of Commons is to keep Northern Ireland moving forward.

Gavin Williamson: Just this morning, pupils from All Saints’ Church of England primary school in Trysull visited me and asked me what I was doing this afternoon, and I explained that I hoped to speak on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) will be shocked to hear that they had not heard of it, but I informed them of the detail. I should say how well behaved they were and what a pleasure it was to have them visit Parliament.
	I had the great privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) when he was in the Northern
	Ireland Office, and I remember how often the Bill, what it would contain and what it would deliver would be mentioned in our discussions. It is satisfying to see so much of what was discussed in the Bill and to see progress being made. Opposition Members have said that they would have liked to see more, but it is heartening to see how much can be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
	It was 10 years ago that I started travelling regularly to Northern Ireland to work. Even in those 10 years, one saw an enormous difference in politics, economics and stability in Northern Ireland. I must confess that the Ulster fries were as good then as they are today—

Stephen Pound: There is not much sign of that!

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and will draw Mrs Williamson’s attention to them. I hope she appreciates that.
	What has happened in the past 10 years—stability, progress—is remarkable, but what has happened in the past 20 years is even more remarkable. As has been mentioned, the Bill is about the progress that has been made and about supporting future progress.
	The G8 was held in County Fermanagh. I remember visiting Lough Erne many times and seeing the beauty of it, and the whole world saw the beauty of Lough Erne. I am sure that that will be an enormous boost to tourism in Northern Ireland. Derry/Londonderry was city of culture last year. So much is happening and there is so much of which to feel proud.
	We have touched on the issue of political donations, and most of my constituents, if they did not understand the context of what Northern Ireland had been through, would find it odd if political donations were not declared. The proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are sensible; they show a clear understanding of the problems we have had in Northern Ireland but take a gradualist approach that will ensure that we are open and transparent. The Electoral Commission’s polling has shown that 62% of people support more transparency and only 7% are happy with the status quo. We should welcome the fact that people feel that transparency about political donations is acceptable and that Northern Ireland is ready to see a greater level of it.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North made an important point about foreign donations from the Republic of Ireland. As we have discovered over the past few months, every multinational company has a base in the Republic of Ireland. In fact, nowadays it is more unusual for a multinational company not to have a base there. I hope that that can be considered, but the progress and the direction of travel are to be welcomed. They are what we need to see and they will build greater confidence in the political process and the political parties of Northern Ireland among all those who take part.
	The Whip will have to make a note of this, but I am tempted to vote against the idea of ending double-jobbing. It is saddening to see that so many wonderful characters—great parliamentarians—might no longer be with us, but despite the sad loss we might have if they decide to stay in Stormont I recognise that we need to deliver that proposal. We promised to deliver it in our manifesto and, as we have already heard from Northern Ireland
	Members, it is something on which they are ready to see progress. They are already delivering it in their political parties. Having such a provision in the Bill is an important element of building the confidence of people in Northern Ireland in the political process. I welcome it, and I am sure that all Members of this House will, too.
	The idea of reducing the number of representatives in the Legislative Assembly should also be welcomed as there is massive over-representation. I accept that Staffordshire has a slightly smaller population than Northern Ireland, by 0.6 million—we have a population of only 1.1 million—but I find it hard to justify such over-representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with 108 Members, to my electorate. I am sure that a sensible number can be reached, to which all parties can agree. We should perhaps be willing to accept that some cages should be rattled if all parties cannot buy into the idea of bringing the number of Members down to a more sustainable level, whether that is 90 or 70—I will leave that to people who are far more knowledgeable about the matter than I am. Such a reduction will be progress. It will not only reduce the cost of politics but make those democratic representatives more relevant. I cannot think of a more horrendous idea than having six members of another assembly sitting below me in my constituency—I imagine it makes local politics a little more interesting. I am not saying that all Northern Ireland Members would be in favour of reducing the number, but it will make politics simpler and easier to understand. It will also make those who are elected to the Legislative Assembly more accountable to their electorate.
	We have heard differing views on whether the election date should be changed, but I think it would be good if all the devolved Assemblies held all their elections on the same day. That would make the date more significant, not only for the devolved Assemblies but for the whole United Kingdom. If elections are held on different days and in different years, there is not so much of a national story or a local story. We must not underestimate the importance of a devolved Assembly to the lives of the whole United Kingdom. As one who believes in a united kingdom, the success of the devolved Assemblies is as important to me as it is to those who live in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. So often, the BBC and our national press ignore stories in the devolved Assemblies; I hope that holding all the elections together will make a more significant news story for the whole of the United Kingdom.
	We have been waiting for this Bill. I remember the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), talking about it excitedly, and now it has arrived. It is a good Bill, I welcome it and I am happy to support it.

Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the fact that, through this Bill, the House is paying some attention to Northern Ireland today, but we should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security that everything in the garden is rosy and just a few tweaks here and there will make everything perfect. Attention to Northern Ireland from this House is needed. I believe it was the shadow Secretary of State who said that devolution cannot mean disengagement, but there has been some degree of disengagement.
	Although I will comment on the Bill, I feel there is a need, before I do so, to set it in context. The context is that, yes, progress has been made—I agree with others on that—but there is a lot more to do. The Bill is concerned with some details of the interior decoration of a structure whose purpose and future are still being debated. Fifteen years ago, we had the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, and legislation followed in this House to put much of that agenda into law. This country—indeed, the world—thought that we had achieved the impossible and that lasting peace was copper-fastened. Sadly, that is not quite true.
	It was wonderful to have an end to the violence and to hear almost all the guns and almost the bombs fall silent. Hope gushed eternal from the people who had been oppressed, smothered, injured and damaged by violence, and they dared to dream of a life and a future, but an end to violence was not peace in any meaningful sense. Really, it was just what it said on the tin: it was an end to violence. Peace does not happen; it has to be built, and when it has been built, it has to be sustained, and it can be sustained only by people’s hope for a better life and a better future. There is no doubt in my mind that in 1998 the people of Ireland, north and south, were voting not just for peace, but for a better life that the peace would make possible.
	We need our people to make a long-term personal investment in that peace, and we must show them what return they will get on that personal investment. In other words, the peace process can be sustained only if it is followed up by a prosperity process. Unfortunately, the financial boost required to pump-prime a prosperity process has never quite been delivered. We have heard much talk about rebalancing our economy towards wealth creation and away from over-reliance on public spending, but we have seen little action other than cuts in welfare. We have had a great debate about cutting corporation tax to put us on a level playing field with the rest of the island of Ireland to attract serious foreign investment, but the Treasury did not want a cut and priced it right out of the ballpark. The economy in Northern Ireland is fragile and the private sector small and extremely fragile. To date, too few of our people have seen any prosperity or, indeed, any economic benefit arrive on the back of the peace process. That is unfortunate, because they were entitled to some economic advance.
	As a result, many people—those on the economic margins of our society—are looking backward, not forward, whether they be former provos peddling themselves as dissidents, or loyalist paramilitaries creating havoc under the guise of a flag protest. Incidentally, that protest wiped out most of our Christmas and hospitality season and left many of our hotels, restaurants and retailers bankrupt. Whatever the source or the excuse for disruption, Northern Ireland has quite a way to go before we can say that we have true peace. I am anxious that the Bill should not be taken as some sort of a final touch on the whole process. We will not have true peace until we have attended to all the factors that undermine peace, including economic factors, and we will not have it unless the sovereign Government recognise the responsibilities they undertook back in 1998. Devolution has been used by Government as an excuse for walking away. I repeat what the shadow Secretary of State said: devolution should not be an excuse for disengagement.
	It needs to be remembered that devolution in Northern Ireland is based on an international agreement between two sovereign Governments from which neither can walk away. The British Government have an obligation to see the Good Friday agreement through to completion. Unfortunately, it is still not complete. There is an obligation to act, in co-operation with the Irish Government, to ensure that devolution is not an excuse for stagnation. I regret to tell the House that, in terms of the special objectives, devolution in Northern Ireland has stalled to some extent. The two main parties have pushed the other three parties, including mine, to the margins—they have pushed us aside and are carving up the cake in their own self-interest, rather than the public interest. The Prime Minister and this Government cannot turn a blind eye any longer: they must recognise that the two-party stranglehold within a structure that was designed to be inclusive is now preventing that structure from achieving its objectives.
	After 15 years, where is the progress on reconciliation and where is there any reference to reconciliation in the Bill? Where is the progress on cohesion, sharing and integration, or any reference to them? Where is there any progress on the victims’ situation, or on dealing with the past or with divisions? I am distressed and concerned that the Bill is silent on those matters. I would prefer that we were here today to discuss how progress on those issues could be advanced and included in a Bill.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how he feels it is a contribution to reconciliation for his party’s councillors to support the naming of a children’s play park after a convicted, dead IRA terrorist, who was caught in possession of the weapon involved in the murder of 10 innocent Protestants at Kingsmill in south Armagh?

Alasdair McDonnell: The issue the right hon. Gentleman refers to is not relevant to this Bill. It is quite simply an example of the DUP—

William McCrea: You wanted to talk about victims.

Alasdair McDonnell: Yes. The DUP are bigots and sectarian and they want to drive a wedge through our society.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Mr Deputy Speaker!

Lindsay Hoyle: “Bigots” is a very strong word. I am sure that hon. Members never judge each other like that.

Alasdair McDonnell: There are issues here, and these people come to apologise for the failures that they have created in Stormont.
	This Bill should deal with serious difficulties in Northern Ireland and offer more remedies; if it does not, it will be inadequate and less than fit for purpose. I will now discuss some of the details of the Bill—first, the clause that deals with donations and the measures that will impact on the functioning of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was deeply concerned to hear that there
	could be restrictions on Irish citizens making donations to political parties in the north. Many of the greatest friends and supporters of the peace process are in the south, and without their support we would not be where we are today. Indeed, those people supported all the parties across the north, not just one or two. I would be deeply concerned about any perceived restrictions on donations from Irish citizens, because something has to be realised in these debates: we are not talking about Surrey, Sussex, Essex or, indeed, Yorkshire. Northern Ireland is different: many of us are Irish and many of us see ourselves as Irish. There is an ambiguity around the settlement that we had, which has created ambiguity. Thank God for that, because it has allowed peace to flourish. We have to build prosperity on that peace.
	We want to move towards a more open and accountable system of donations in Northern Ireland, and we are happy to do so when that is possible. However, those who make donations on a certain understanding of anonymity should be protected from retrospective action unless they give authorisation. That authorisation should be specific, rather than assumed. I do not want to take up any more time, but I think I was quoted earlier, and I would endorse that. I have seen a number of people who have been intimidated, and who are frightened and worried. We have to protect them.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman said that many people saw themselves as Irish in Northern Ireland. That may be the case, but does he acknowledge that the national opinion poll last year showed that only 21% of nationalists were in favour of a united Ireland? This year, only 19% of Irish nationalists want a united Ireland. Things are changing. Is he part of that change, or is he just one of the old boys who do not want to change at all?

Alasdair McDonnell: I am not sure what answer I am supposed to give, or what answer is expected. I do not think that any of us pay much attention to opinion polls yet, at the same time, we can quote selectively from them when it suits.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A moment ago, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) was challenged about his party’s support for the naming of a playground after an IRA terrorist. Rather than answering the point, he used the term “bigots” to refer to hon. Members in a somewhat childish reaction, instead of responding to the substantive point. Can you give a ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the use of the term “bigot” as parliamentary language to refer to hon. Members?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is why I interrupted the debate. This is about having a temperate debate. It is about using moderate language. We do not want to inflame the debate. That is why I interrupted in the way that I did. I do not think that it was an appropriate use of the word, but I made that point at the time. We have moved on, and it is about making sure that it is a debate in which people have respect for one another. We are in danger of losing that respect with the use of inflammatory language.

Alasdair McDonnell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the record, I did not accuse any hon. Member. I referred to a group of—[Interruption.]

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we get too far with further points of order, I know that reference was not made to an individual Member, but the Members to whom the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred were sitting behind him. In a sense, it was a collective use of the word. I do not want to prolong this. I have given my view and I want to hear more of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

Alasdair McDonnell: I want to put on the record my deep concern that there are considerations to take into account about placing restrictions on Irish citizens who make donations to Irish political parties in the north. I do not wish to back that proposal, and I do not support that part of the Bill. As for transparency on donations, we want to move towards the open and accountable system to which I have referred.
	We are comfortable, even though the Secretary of State has some grudge against the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and me, with the phasing out of the dual mandate in due course, and we have gone most of the way towards doing so. However, that should allow for some flexibility where appropriate, and clear lines of communication between the House of Commons and the devolved Assembly are essential. The way in which those lines of communication will be maintained should be explained in the Bill. It should be noted that there is no corresponding legislation covering the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I am concerned that a rush to legislate on this could have unknown, and perhaps unwanted and unexpected, consequences.
	Furthermore, our party would point out that the provisions do not deal with a dual mandate between the Assembly and the House of Lords. We do not agree that, somehow or other, the House of Lords is different. If there is an exclusion or ruling out of the dual mandate, it should be ruled out for all. If the Secretary of State is determined to ban the practice, why can that not be done for the upper House? Those issues need to be explored further as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
	Briefly, the reduction in the size of the Assembly should be approached with caution. Yes, we agreed to a small reduction in the context of the reduction of the number of Westminster seats—that is on the record at Stormont, where the discussions took place—but the Assembly should be as inclusive as possible, and should involve as many people as possible until a sustainable peace and good politics are well established there. We believe that until that happens there are risks.
	The extension of the term of the Assembly is wrong. It is totally inappropriate for any Member given a mandate for four years to have their term extended to five years without clear justification. The election has been postponed so that it can be held at a time of possible tension, wedged between the 100th anniversary, as has been said, of the Easter rising and the 100th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. While hon. Members might not be involved in raising tension—indeed, we will do all that we can to reduce it—the anniversary of the
	battle of the Somme will increase tensions, as will the Easter rising anniversary, and it is inappropriate to hold an election between those two anniversaries.
	Electoral registration in Northern Ireland is defective and while we can dot some of the i’s and cross some of the t’s in the Bill, there are some areas in which 20% to 25% of people—the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) suggested that it was 30%—are not on the register. There is a duty on someone, somewhere to ensure that that registration gap is covered and repaired.
	I do not wish to say the matters in the Bill are not important—they are—but on their own they are not enough to bring progress and achieve better electoral registration. Any honest observer will say that there has been little progress overall in Northern Ireland. I urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Government to get a grip on the stagnant situation in Northern Ireland, as we face serious problems.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alasdair McDonnell: Sorry, no: I want to make progress.
	Months of illegality during the flags protests do not bode well for the marching season, which has started badly, as we have heard. We are now much further away from dealing with flags, marches and illegal bonfires than we were five years ago.
	I want to put on the record the fact that profits from illegal fuel laundering in Ireland generally—we can split it north and south; it used to be a northern problem, but it has migrated south, and regrettably it has moved into parts of southern Scotland and northern England—amounting to £60 million to £70 million a year are swelling the coffers of the provo organisation. Much of that has now been set up as a privatised business.

David Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alasdair McDonnell: I am trying to make progress, but the hon. Gentleman has an interest in this, so I shall do so.

David Simpson: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman referred to illicit fuel laundering across the whole of Northern Ireland, right across the whole of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland. If his party agreed to the implementation of the National Crime Agency that would go a long way towards trying to resolve the problem.

Alasdair McDonnell: Issues relating to the National Crime Agency have to be resolved. We are keen that responsibility for dealing with crime and keeping the law is retained in Northern Ireland with the PSNI.
	Beyond fuel laundering, tobacco smuggling creates about £100 million-worth of benefit to a wide cross-section of people. Some of them are provos, some are dissidents, many are loyalists and many are non-aligned criminals. The Bill works to convey the impression—perhaps with some justification—that we have a normal society. Yes, we are moving towards a normal society, but our society did not suddenly become normal when organised violence ended. There were generations of industrial decline, then decades of violence, which left our economy drastically skewed towards public spending. It will take at least a generation to fix it, as the Prime Minister recognised before the election.
	The people who brought us the decades of violence are still there, doing rather nicely out of organised crime, which is in danger of becoming normalised. Millions of litres of laundered fuel have been seized, but not one person has gone to jail. We have a deeply divided society, with little prospect of divisions being tackled seriously if the current two-party stranglehold is allowed to determine the rate of progress. Let us be blunt and recognise just how deep the divisions are that we have and the divisions that we are asked to tackle.
	We have a major challenge to tackle. The Bill should tackle the reconciliation issue, the victims issue, dealing with the past, and cohesion, sharing and integration. All these things are vital and should be included in some shape or form in the Bill, and there should be some movement on that.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak in the debate. I will not pretend that I knew Northern Ireland particularly well before I was elected to this place, but sitting on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who does such a brilliant job of chairing it and keeping us all in order, I have learned quite a bit about Northern Ireland, and also from being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly.
	Last night I was listening to Michael Portillo’s programme on BBC Radio 4 about 1913, which happens to be the year before my father was born. Michael Portillo talked about how it was that Ireland became involved in the domestic policy of Britain and how important that was. That had kicked off in 1848, with the Irish potato famine. Today I was reminded by one of my hon. Friends that when Churchill introduced the Bill to establish the Irish free state in 1922 he famously remarked that despite the cataclysm of the first world war which had swept the world, the “integrity of the quarrel” between the people of Fermanagh was one of the few institutions that had been unaltered. Today that situation has been transformed by peace in a way that was barely imaginable 20 years ago, let alone in the 1920s. This month Fermanagh was not at the heart of a quarrel, but was the home of the world’s leaders at the G8 conference at Lough Erne. This year we are celebrating the city of culture in Londonderry, and this very week last year we saw the Irish open taking place at Royal Portrush, which I was delighted to be able to go to. Progress is being made.
	Today is an historic occasion. We are not talking about the troubles. We are talking about the constitution of Northern Ireland. I want to use this opportunity to congratulate and to thank the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and also Sir John Major for all their hard work and effort in bringing about the Good Friday agreement. I thank the Americans as well and President Clinton for the effort that he invested.
	I welcome the Bill. There are one or two issues about which I have concerns, such as the dual mandate, which allows people to sit in the House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is very good indeed that we are talking about how we can create greater transparency in Northern Ireland. In the main, I agree with the Bill.
	Last week members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee were in the United States of America, where we saw for ourselves how the Americans are beginning to view the situation in Northern Ireland. They think that the whole issue of Northern Ireland is sorted and is no longer a problem, but we all know because we see it in our national press and our national media that there will always remain a residue of real concern about making sure that there is peace in Northern Ireland. We learned how hard the Northern Ireland Bureau is working to encourage inward investment into Northern Ireland. That is incredibly good news. That is another example to show how Northern Ireland is moving forward to a more natural form of politics.
	Measures to make political donations transparent, to stop double-jobbing, to introduce a real opposition and to create an accurate electoral register are all positive moves. The US was somewhat surprised at the recent flags protest and feared that might discourage future investment. The recent civil disturbances and what may potentially happen during the marching season should make us feel concerned about how members of society are coming forward and how it is that some young people feel disenfranchised from the peace process.

Naomi Long: I caution the hon. Gentleman. In all the discussion about people feeling disconnected and disillusioned with the political process, it is important that we do not talk about them being disenfranchised. People have a franchise—the right to a vote. They may not avail themselves of that vote, but they have a franchise. We need to reconnect them and re-energise them about politics, and it is important to make the distinction.

Oliver Colvile: I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me. I am sorry that I ended up making a mistake. This time last year when we were in Northern Ireland seeing the marches take place, I switched on the television to watch a documentary about the battle of the Boyne and how James II sought to re-establish his throne there. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me about that.
	It is excellent news that the Northern Ireland Executive will be given extra funds if progress is made on bringing down the peace walls. Our priorities surely should be to create community cohesion and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Key to that is a skilled work force. As I understand it, 60% of people who work in Northern Ireland still work in the public sector. We must try to do something about that. Northern Ireland has a vibrant university sector, which has the potential to create a vibrant economy, and Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a common land border with another EU country.
	We need to encourage investment into Northern Ireland. That is why I support, as did the Select Committee, a reduction in corporation tax. Key to creating a vibrant economy are not only high skills, but better transport links. As in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, we need to ensure that there are better transport links from Northern Ireland to England and to London. The House may be interested to know that today I wrote to the Chancellor asking for some studies into dualling the A303, which feeds into my constituency, and improving our train network. The Province needs good links not only to the UK and to southern Ireland, but to the US.
	Last week’s G8 meeting in Londonderry was another good opportunity to demonstrate how Northern Ireland is moving forward. It is vital that we do not take our eye off the ball and that we continue to be as supportive as we can be to Northern Ireland and all the communities within it.

Naomi Long: Like other Members who have spoken, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on Second Reading, because the Bill deals with a number of important issues that relate to improving democracy and accountability in Northern Ireland.
	I welcome at the outset, as other Members have done, the fact that the Bill, unlike so many of its predecessors, is not the result of a crisis or emergency and is not intended to resolve a point of instability in the Assembly. Instead, it is part of the normal democratic process. Not only does that demonstrate the significant progress that has been made at a political level in recent years, notwithstanding the many serious issues still to be addressed, and indeed the occasional setback, but it afforded the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny and the Northern Ireland parties and general public the opportunity to express a view on the proposals the Government brought forward during the public consultation. That is a hugely important part of the democratic process that has helped shape the Bill, and I hope it will set the tone for future engagement on legislation relating to Northern Ireland.
	I will focus on a few aspects of the Bill: donor transparency, the rules affecting dual mandates and reform of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill contains other important provisions that I support, such as those relating to the working of the Electoral Commission, but I do not have time to go into them in detail today.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that important point. It is essential that people are on the electoral register. I recently held an event in my constituency at which we were able to get people registered and get their photo ID, but there were a great many other places where we were unable to do that because the Electoral Commission told us it did not have the funds. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the fact that clause 18 refers to taking all steps necessary for the purpose of complying with the duty to maintain the registers so that every step will be taken, including releasing funds and making more funding available to ensure that people are registered?

Naomi Long: I certainly agree that the resources available to the Electoral Commission need to be used wisely. As in every other public body, the commission’s resources will be constrained by the limitations of what is available, but I note that the Secretary of State said earlier that additional funding would be made available specifically to deal with registration.

Michael Penning: Perhaps I can clarify the situation. The full door-to-door canvass was not due to take place this year, but I have now made the funding available, along with the necessary administration process, so that it can do so. It is for the political process in Northern Ireland,
	as well as the Electoral Commission, to push that forward so that we get more people on the electoral register, because if they are not on the register they cannot vote and no one can campaign for their vote.

Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for that clarification, which hopefully will have answered some of the specific questions Members have on electoral registration.
	The first issue I want to address is transparency on political party donations and loans, which I have raised in the House on a number of occasions over the past few years. Whatever the historical arguments regarding the need to protect the identity of donors, I firmly believe that the time to lift that veil of secrecy has passed. The Northern Ireland public have a right to know the identity of significant donors to political parties, as voters do in the rest of the UK, and then to judge for themselves whether such donations influence the decisions, policies and actions of parties. As long as mystery surrounds that, parties will be open to the charge that they are influenced in that way, but they will be largely unable to defend themselves against such suspicion. Although that is disclosed to the Electoral Commission, it is not made public, and that is key.
	The security situation in Northern Ireland, although far from perfect, has improved significantly since donor anonymity was introduced. It is not consistent or sustainable to argue that Northern Ireland is a safe and welcoming destination for tourism and inward investment while at the same time arguing that the security situation is so grave that normal democratic scrutiny cannot be introduced.
	Three primary concerns regarding the impact of transparency have been raised. I will briefly address each in turn. First, there is the fear of a threat of violence against a person, their family or property as a result of their association with a particular party becoming known. Despite the genuine concerns expressed in that regard, there appears to be little tangible evidence of specific targeting of donors as part of campaigns. However, nowhere can that be entirely ruled out. Therefore, donors should carefully consider the risk when deciding whether to donate; it is not compulsory. Knowing that their donations will be published will help to inform them as to which decision to make.
	I am certainly not oblivious to, or cavalier about, the risk that being politically aligned or identified in Northern Ireland can still carry. My party leader, David Ford MLA, who is the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, is likewise cognisant of the continued risks. However, that does not insulate Northern Ireland politics from the wider public perception that politics is organised for the benefit of the few rather than the many. Notwithstanding any security concerns, if we are to increase trust and confidence in the political system, we need to maximise openness and transparency. As a result, and despite ongoing security concerns, the Alliance party voluntarily publishes our returns to the Electoral Commission on our website and has done so over the past few years, and to no disadvantage. I call again on other parties to do likewise in order to help grow confidence in the commitment to public scrutiny, regardless of a legislative requirement to do so.
	Secondly, in the case of business, concerns have been expressed that opponents of a particular party might boycott a business if its owner or company are seen to support a particular party political view. However, in
	theory the same could happen in any part of the UK. Again, it is a matter that donors should consider carefully before donating, rather than a reason to deny the public their right of scrutiny. In my view, and incidentally that of Sir Christopher Kelly, as expressed in his evidence to the Select Committee, neither risk should automatically be given primacy over the principles that guide public life: openness, transparency and accountability.
	Thirdly, as parties are not publicly funded and therefore rely on donations to survive, one could argue that any action that could deter donors could restrict party political activity or even the range of choice available to the electorate. I challenge that on two grounds. In order to stand for election to a council, candidates need the signatures and addresses of residents in the council area on their nomination papers, and those are published. I am not aware of parties being unable to field candidates, even in the worst days of the troubles, due to people being unwilling to have that information published, despite it being a more direct link to elected politics. People clearly weigh up those risk but still opt to be involved, whether as candidates, canvassers, supporters, nominees or otherwise, and there is evidence that since 1998 the public’s willingness to do so has increased.
	Furthermore, most parties have said, including in evidence to the Select Committee, that they receive very few donations that reach the £7,500 threshold for donor names to be declared and instead are heavily reliant on small donations from members and supporters. Even if all of those large donations were to cease, according to their evidence that would not have a disproportionate effect on party finances or activity and would not jeopardise the continued functioning of our democracy.
	It is worth noting, as a measure of just how opaque donor information is in Northern Ireland, that it is against the law for the Electoral Commission even to confirm or dispute a party’s claim that it receives few donations of that magnitude. Such anonymised data pose no risk to anyone and would provide considerable insight for the public into how parties are funded and how reliant they are on a small number of donors. I think that the move towards publishing anonymised data in the interim, between now and October 2014, would be good preparation for change.

Bob Stewart: I thank the hon. and very brave Lady for allowing me to intervene. I understand her argument, but is she asking for that provision on publishing the identity of political donors to be backdated, because that would worry me?

Naomi Long: I thank the right hon. Gentleman—

Bob Stewart: Sadly not.

Naomi Long: Well, given the timing of his intervention, which led perfectly to what I was about to say, perhaps that will be reviewed in due course. I thank him for making that point, because it is an important one.
	With respect to the retrospective publication of donor information, I think that it is reasonable that where people had an expectation, even though the letter of the law suggests otherwise, that donations they made during the prescribed period would remain confidential even
	after the prescribed period ended, that should be honoured. Such historical information should be published only with their express consent, as to do so otherwise would be a fundamental breach of trust.
	However, I support the Electoral Commission’s proposal that the expectation of anonymity should be removed from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent, making it clear that all donations made after that date will be subject to future publication. Whether the Secretary of State decides that such publication should happen routinely from October 2014, the expiry of the current prescribed period, or chooses again to extend that period, they should be published at a subsequent juncture. I think that that ought to be pursued in Committee, as it adds clarity for donors in the interim and increases public confidence without limiting the options available to the Secretary of State.
	With regard to the prescribed period and its continuation, I remain disappointed that a firm commitment has not been given to remove anonymity at the first possible opportunity. The Bill gives the Secretary of State maximum flexibility specifically to increase transparency, and I welcome the presumption in favour of publication, but both fall short of a commitment to end the inequality that exists between Northern Ireland residents and their counterparts in Great Britain. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to give some reassurance in that regard.
	Finally, with regard to donations, I believe that there might be merit in considering further whether the threshold for publication of donations to Northern Ireland political parties should be reduced from £7,500 to a lower figure, given the smaller income of most local parties and the likely lower threshold at which donations may be considered large enough to influence a party’s decision. Clearly, that requires the striking of a very delicate balance between the administrative burden that it would create for what are, in the main, small organisations, and increasing transparency for the public. Such matters are not unique to Northern Ireland, so the Bill may not be the ideal vehicle for advancing them, but it would be helpful to consider them at Government level in future.
	On multiple mandates, I welcome the clauses that will disqualify a Member of Parliament from also being a Member of the Assembly. I do not believe that MPs should be permitted to continue as Members of the Assembly. The primary argument that they should is that the fledging Assembly structures were unstable and senior political figures who left Westminster for the Assembly could find themselves with no mandate in the event of a collapse. Those points no longer hold true, as the Assembly is in its second successive, uninterrupted term, which represents positive progress.
	A further argument advanced in favour of allowing such a dual mandate is that, for key people in party leadership roles or holding key ministerial positions in the devolved Assembly, the direct linkage with Parliament can prove valuable in keeping them fully informed of developments in both places. I do not think that that argument carries much weight in the current situation.
	As deputy leader of the Alliance party and MP for East Belfast, it is incumbent on me to keep abreast of developments in the devolved institutions and keep in close contact with Assembly colleagues about the implications of matters discussed in this Chamber and the Assembly. I do not need to sit in both places for
	that. There are also mechanisms for the Ministers in the Executive who are not MPs to meet their counterparts in Westminster and address issues with them and vice-versa, and the majority fall into that category.
	Having fulfilled the roles of MP and MLA, I strongly believe that both jobs are at least full time and require a focus that could not be achieved effectively with a dual mandate and consequently competing demands on time. It is a crucial part of the role of an MLA that they should be in Stormont to vote on legislation passing through the Assembly, to question Ministers and to hold the Executive to account. Equally, an MP’s work demands that they be in Westminster for a significant and conflicting proportion of the week to scrutinise and vote on legislation and policy, question Ministers and provide a voice for their constituents. Although there is a considerable overlap in the constituency casework element of both jobs, the locations and timings make them incompatible with each other, regardless of the talent, energy or ability of individual Members. Put simply, no person can be in two places at once.
	A further benefit of ending dual mandates would be the creation of an opportunity not only for parties to bring forward new talent, but for the electorate to see the electoral cohort refreshed, reinvigorated and made more reflective of society as a whole. Again, Alliance as a party has voluntarily and speedily acted in respect of dual mandates, following through on our pre-election pledges and manifesto commitments to do so, within weeks of election to Westminster.
	Three years on, there has been significant time and space for parties to implement fully their pre-election commitments to end dual mandates, yet many have failed to make other than glacial progress in that regard. It is important that the legislation comes forward to ensure that the wishes of the public are taken into account.
	Although I recognise that the House of Lords is not structured in the same way as the Commons—its Members have no electoral mandate and no constituency responsibilities—the same conflict exists for Members of the Lords. I am disappointed that currently the Bill does not disqualify Members of the Lords from belonging to the Assembly. Given the important role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber and the burden of undertaking detailed scrutiny of Government Bills, it would be challenging for a peer who was also an MLA, with the legislative, constituency and Committee responsibilities attendant on that position, to commit fully to the discharge of either role.
	The situation is exacerbated because the Assembly and the Lords also sit at the same times on Mondays and Tuesdays, further limiting a person’s ability to participate fully in the work of both institutions. I recognise that remuneration for the work of a peer is different and reflects the fact that many peers have careers outside Parliament, some of which may also conflict with the sittings of the House of Lords, so I would have been content for the measures to end dual representation to be considered in the context of wider Lords reform, which would have addressed remuneration and allowances at the same time. However, as that has not been advanced and is unlikely to be in this Parliament, the Government should revisit the possibility of action in this Bill.
	If membership of this Parliament is a disqualification for serving in the Assembly, it follows logically that membership of other Parliaments should also be. I welcome the fact that the Government are including membership of Dáil Éireann as a disqualification, but just as I believe that membership of the House of Lords should be a disqualification when it comes to membership of the Assembly, membership of the Seanad should also be, regardless of any Irish Government plans for the reform or abolition of that body.
	I move on to the structures of the Assembly. We believe that the Assembly and parliamentary elections should be decoupled. The roles and responsibilities of each legislature are separate and distinct, and it is important that the issues pertinent to each receive full and detailed public consideration in advance of the vote. That will be difficult if both elections are running on the same day or without adequate separation, with the risk that one set of elections would overshadow the other.
	For example, national coverage of Westminster elections could eclipse Northern Ireland issues and regional focus on the Assembly could lead to inadequate coverage of national issues. Alternatively, the two could become unhelpfully conflated. I am strongly of the opinion that elections should be held separately, preferably a year apart, and that the electorate should be given a full opportunity to engage in issues affecting each legislature. On that, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and I, the Member for Belfast East, find common ground.
	I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland electorate are sophisticated and able to deal with the complexity of having not only two different elections but two different voting systems on the same day, but such circumstances are not desirable, although they might be practically manageable. I therefore support the extension of the current term and the change to five-year terms for the Assembly, as ad hoc changes to avoid future conflicts will no longer have to be made. What I propose would regularise the situation just as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will, and that is welcome.

Oliver Colvile: Does the hon. Lady agree that such a change would stop any confusion because the United Kingdom general election will take place in 2015 as well and people could be confused?

Naomi Long: I am not entirely clear about the hon. Gentleman’s point, but separating the general election from the Assembly election is important. Ensuring that that separation is maintained in the long term, without ad hoc changes to the length of the Assembly term, is important.
	The Assembly term was generally the one that had to be adjusted to move away from Westminster’s and that made the Assembly seem somewhat less important. That is not a particularly good message to give the electorate —that we will hold the election as long as nothing more important is happening. Resolving the issue once and for all is a much better way to move forward.
	I move on to the structures of the Assembly. I turn to the arrangements for the appointment and replacement of the Justice Minister. I am pleased that the issues that my own party and others have raised in this regard are now being addressed in a manner fairer and more
	appropriate than the current arrangements. There are twin anomalies. First, whichever party holds the Justice Ministry will end up with an additional Ministry over its d’Hondt entitlement. Secondly, there is a lack of security of tenure for the Justice Minister, who can be removed from post by an Assembly vote, unlike any other Minister, potentially leading to under-representation in comparison to the d’Hondt entitlement were the power to be exercised.
	The current arrangement is not sustainable, and although my own party has benefited from the first anomaly in this term, while remaining vulnerable to the second, we wish the issue to be addressed. The proposals before us are, in essence, the same as those that my party and others discussed in trying to come to a resolution, so we welcome their inclusion in the Bill. They will create a fairer arrangement for all the parties in the Executive, and, crucially for those who voted for them, ensure that the Justice Minister counts towards the d’Hondt allocation but, once appointed, can be removed only by resignation or through the party nominating officer, as with other Ministers.
	Finally, I am disappointed that provision could not have been made in the Bill to allow the wider structures and size of the Assembly to be reformed, as seemed to be very much part of the Bill when the previous Secretary of State talked about it initially. The issue’s initial prominence seems to have disappeared.
	It has long been the view of the Alliance party, throughout the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement and subsequent negotiations and reforms, that democracy in Northern Ireland would be best served by a properly funded, properly structured formal Opposition. Having, as a party, spent a considerable time as the only effective Opposition within the Assembly and been the only one of the five major parties to have been outside the Executive for much of the Assembly’s existence, we recognise the importance of that role. However, unlike other legislatures, there is no formal role, status or support for such an Opposition, inhibiting effectiveness.
	We also recognise, however, that the current system was endorsed as part of the Good Friday agreement referendum and that any such change would therefore require the consent of the Assembly and should not be externally imposed. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly is considering proposals to move in that direction, although as yet consensus has not been achieved. That is regrettable. It is also regrettable that enabling legislation that would have permitted the formation of an opposition could not have been included in the Bill so that we could at least have put down a marker that it were possible, albeit that the Assembly would be required to ask for it to be implemented. Such reform would also have allowed for much of the architecture around consociationalism, which, while managing division, has tended to copper-fasten rather than diminish it over time without removing or undermining the protections for minorities.
	Linked to such reform is the size of the Assembly. In my party’s view, the current number of MLAs is too large when compared with other levels of representation across the UK, and we would like the number of seats to be reduced. We recognise the vital importance of ensuring that proportionality is fully protected as any reform goes forward. That is the key aspect to maintaining
	the confidence of Northern Ireland voters. We propose that the number of elected representatives to be returned by each constituency should, as a starting point, be five rather than six. Should the number be reduced to fewer than five, there would be a risk of imbalances in terms of how reflective of the population those returned at the election would be. That has been shown in elections to Dáil Éireann on the basis of three, four and five-seat constituencies. Proportionality is crucial in a deeply divided society such as ours.
	We would also support a reduction in the number of constituencies. We are disappointed that that was unable to be effected as part of the proposals that went before this House, which would have resulted in 16 constituencies with five Members each. That would have taken us to us to around the 80 mark, which would have been extremely helpful in reducing the Assembly to a more manageable size. There is no evidence to suggest that an 80-Member Assembly would be insufficient to ensure the effectiveness of its operations, particularly if streamlining of the Executive happened concurrently.
	Our proposals for a reduction to eight departments are a matter of record as part of the discussions of the AER Committee at Stormont. We believe that that, coupled with an allied reduction in Government Departments, would lead to a reduction in the number of statutory committees, thus not significantly increasing the burden on a smaller number of MLAs. We would also argue that such reform would lead to no discernible drop in the level of governance, as evidenced by the Scottish Parliament, which has similar powers and functions to those of the Assembly but fewer MSPs per head of population.
	This is a second lost opportunity to right-size the Assembly after the abandonment of the boundary changes and other measures. I am pleased that such changes proposed by the Assembly in future will not require primary legislation in order to right-size it, but it is disappointing that there is not more in the Bill to drive that forward.
	I very much welcome the Bill and the more positive context in which it has been introduced, although I express some disappointment about how far-reaching it is. I hope that in Committee issues such as donor transparency and the recommendations of the Electoral Commission will be addressed and taken forward.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long).
	I will touch on two very significant issues, the first of which is the increased transparency of donations. I commend the hon. Lady and the Alliance party, who have been very open about this issue for a number of years. I am glad that we are sticking to the timetable of October 2014. I urge the Secretary of State, when we get there, to implement the measure post-haste, because we have reached a point in Northern Ireland at which it is very important to normalise donations and their transparency. Like everyone in the Chamber, I fully understand that Northern Ireland is in a different situation, and has certainly come from a very different place, but I am firmly of the view that it is time that donations there are completely normalised and that they become as transparent as they are in the rest of the country.
	The second issue is the proposal to change the process of appointment and dismissal for Northern Ireland Justice Ministers. That is clearly a very sensitive post. I appreciate the thought and consultation that has gone into the Bill in this context as it will provide greater security of tenure. The complexity around d’Hondt should provide a discipline to the whole process that means, one hopes, that it will never need to be implemented. It is a very practical and sensible addition to the Bill.
	As a number of colleagues have said, this is the first Northern Ireland Bill since 1998—the first in 15 years—to be introduced at Westminster under normal circumstances; all the others have been dealt with under emergency procedures. That demonstrates the enormous progress that has been made over the past few years, despite some of the challenges over the past 24 months. It is a very positive sign that demonstrates that even if it is sometimes inch by inch, the society of Northern Ireland is going in the right direction.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) flagged up the issue of 2016 and all the historical issues and challenges that we will have to move through. He rightly pointed out that in 1916 many people from the Ulster regiments served and died on the Somme. My grandfather served and was wounded on the Somme. He originally hailed from County Mayo and that fact demonstrates the complexity of the whole issue. When we get to the point of discussing it, I am sure that all Members of the House will deal with it as sensitively as we must.
	I commend the Secretary of State for the Bill. It has taken 15 years, but it is good to have another Northern Ireland Bill debated on the Floor of the House.

Gregory Campbell: I concur with much of what has been said in this Second Reading debate. The Secretary of State said that this was a Bill for more normal times. On an earlier occasion, it was described as a “normalisation” Bill.
	I want to allude to a small number of issues, the first of which has been dealt with by several Members—party political donations. I welcome the fact that we are making progress towards full and open disclosure, although we are not yet where we need to be, for a number of reasons. We cannot yet fully arrive at the concluding point, but I hope that we are making significant strides towards it.
	Another issue is the creation of an opposition in the Assembly, which is concentrating the minds of the Assembly and the Executive Review Committee at Stormont. For my sins, I am a member of that Committee and have an attendance rate of over 70%. The dual mandate has not restricted me from maintaining my representation role either there or here. I hope that we are making significant progress towards the creation of an opposition, although we have not reached the final stage.
	We are also discussing a reduction in the size of the Assembly. Other Members have made their position clear on that. My view, and that of my party, is that we should be considering a much more significant reduction—for cost purposes, if for no other reason. The over-representation in the Assembly means that we have the almost ludicrous situation of a population of 1.8 million being represented by 108 MLAs. We should remember
	that the salary of an MLA is £48,000, plus an office costs expenditure allowance of £71,378—a total of £120,000 for each MLA. It should be possible to get to the point where we have four MLAs per constituency, making a total of 72. That would be a significant reduction of 36, from 108 to 72.
	If we do not agree to such a reduction in the Northern Ireland Assembly and we make dual mandates illegal, the cost to the taxpayer will be in the region of £100,000 per year per MLA. If a dozen MLAs were also MPs and they stood down—thankfully we have moved beyond that—it would cost £1 million a year every year, unless there were a reduction in the number of MLAs at Stormont. Each of the parties has handled the issue of dual mandates voluntarily. I made representations to Sir Christopher Kelly about my party’s position, which is that we will phase out dual mandates.
	Given that the Government introduced a non-salaried role for those of us who were in both legislatures, I would have thought that most people would say to those who want to do a second job and not get paid for it, but who are as diligent there as they are here, “If you want to do it, get on and do it.” However, we are moving towards a point where that will no longer be required.
	Members have made fleeting reference to the normality of life in Northern Ireland and to the way in which the Bill reflects that. Over the last few months, Londonderry has celebrated being the first ever UK city of culture. The many celebrations over the past week have indicated the normality that is returning not just to Londonderry, but to Northern Ireland as a whole. We hope to demonstrate that normality more and more in the coming months, not just through the UK city of culture, but across Northern Ireland.
	The other issue that I want to allude to is very important to citizens everywhere. I hold in my hand a badge that is important to people in every nation on Earth: a passport. It is a badge of citizenship. It declares that one can call on the services of the nation when in difficulty in another land. In Northern Ireland we have a problem that I have raised with the Secretary of State and her predecessors. Some people wish to have an Irish identity, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) indicated when he was not describing others as bigots. In my other hand, I hold an Irish passport.

Naomi Long: Is it yours, Gregory?

Gregory Campbell: No, it is not mine.
	People in Northern Ireland are entitled to have either passport or even both passports if they so wish. The anomaly relates to the thousands of people who were born in the Irish Republic after 1949, when it left the Commonwealth, but who have lived for decades in Northern Ireland. Those people are British. They are British by courtesy of their tax-paying and their voting arrangements. They are British voters and British residents, but they cannot hold a British passport. That anomaly has to be addressed.
	I hope that the matter will be raised at the appropriate point in the progress of the Bill. If people in Northern Ireland have the right to claim an Irish identity, even if they have never been to the Irish Republic, why can people who were born in the Irish Republic, but who have been British and have lived in the United Kingdom for decades not have British citizenship? They demand
	the right to have British citizenship, but they are currently denied that right. I hope we will be able to debate amendments to deal with that during the Bill’s passage.
	As I said earlier, we are very pleased with element of the Bill. We wish that it would go further, particularly in respect of Members who do not turn up here, but who still have their allowances paid. That will have to be dealt with quickly, if not in this Bill, then through another means. I hope that progress will be made on the measures that are in the Bill and on other issues that, although outside the remit of the Bill, will, I hope, be introduced before we get much further.

William McCrea: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in this important debate for Northern Ireland. I also want to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for the tone in which they introduced the debate on this Bill.
	The Secretary of State acknowledged that we are in more normal times. Although that is true, I cannot forget the awful murder of David Black near the town where I went to school. I want to express my appreciation to the security services and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which provide daily protection for the people of Northern Ireland. They have thwarted many of the attempts by terrorists and allowed us to live in peace. Although it is true that we are in more normal times, there is still a dissident threat in Northern Ireland.
	The Secretary of State acknowledged that devolved government in Northern Ireland is well established. The House must accept that the formula for government in Northern Ireland, with a mandatory coalition at its heart, cannot continue indefinitely. Although the Bill reforms other parts of political life in Northern Ireland, that fundamental part is left untouched. I believe that it will have to be addressed at a later date.
	I acknowledge, as did both Front Benchers, the tremendous boost that the G8 leaders brought to Northern Ireland, County Fermanagh and the beautiful countryside of Lough Erne and the Fermanagh lakes, which is next to my constituency of South Antrim. We should again show our appreciation to the Prime Minister for bringing the most powerful leaders in the world to Northern Ireland. I trust that we will build on that. The Prime Minister’s promise that he will return to Northern Ireland for an investment conference later in the year is to be welcomed.
	We must build jobs and rebalance the economy, as Members have said, but we can only do that with further growth in the economy. I would like prosperity to be enjoyed by all. I looked today at the unemployment statistics and claimant figures for the United Kingdom. I was delighted to see that my constituency again has the highest employment in the Province and has seen a decrease in claimants. That should be welcomed by all Members, because those figures refer to individual people and we should be glad that they are in a job in these difficult days.
	I welcome the tone that has been used by the majority of Members. I will not go in depth into what I believe was a slur on my colleagues and me by the leader of the SDLP, but I believe that his remark says more about him than about us. I suggest to him quietly and respectfully
	that it would be better for his constituents and his party if he took the battle to Sinn Fein, rather than to the Unionists who turn up to this House. I trust he will reflect on that, because it is an honourable thing to apologise when a person makes a mistake.
	The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make transparent the declaration of donations and non-commercial loans to political parties in Northern Ireland from September 2014. The Democratic Unionist party supports transparency in principle, but it must be acknowledged that there were good reasons for Northern Ireland being afforded a special status in this matter. This House must never forget the bravery displayed by many individuals and businesses in stepping forward in dangerous and perilous times to make donations to political parties that stood up for justice and democracy against the forces of intimidation and terror. Many did so at great personal and corporate risk, and their sacrifice and courage must not be forgotten. The DUP is doing its part to move Northern Ireland forward to a more normalised society. We acknowledge that the normalisation of political donations must be tackled, and that the Bill takes a step in that direction. Transparency should be a part of such a process, but I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister who will reply to the debate to reflect on the timetable.

Naomi Long: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I take cognisance of what he says about the difficult situation and the reasons for anonymity. His party has said that very few of its donations exceed the £7,500 threshold requiring the names of donors to be published, so what tangible difference would it make if only a small number of donations had the potential to be affected by transparency rules?

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I have to acknowledge that I am an hon. Member, not a right hon. Member, of this House.
	Putting the life of any individual at risk is very serious. There is a level of donation at which a name would have to be given, and that could put people, and the profitability of the businesses they represent, at risk. We have acknowledged that the measure is right in principle. The Bill will take things forward in a careful manner, but I question the current timetable of 2014.

Jim Shannon: The spirit of the proposals is not to scare off people who wish to contribute to a political party, but the fact is that a great many people in Northern Ireland will feel under pressure because of their political allegiance. That is a key issue for individuals, families and businesses.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Any change must be made in conjunction with an appropriate security assessment by the PSNI. There still exists— the Secretary of State acknowledged this in her opening remarks—a significant threat in Northern Ireland, and we have to be careful because we are dealing with people’s lives. I know the dangers that people face day by day in the constituency in which I live in the west of the Province. We need to move at a proper pace that takes into account the uncertainty involved for businesses that make public donations. Moving too quickly to a fully open and transparent system could be detrimental to the democratic process and political stability.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) acknowledged, one aspect of the Bill needs greater consideration and reflection. Individuals and bodies in the Irish Republic can donate to parties in Northern Ireland, in contravention of the law in that country. Indeed, it is much worse than that, because individuals and bodies in the Republic of Ireland could be used as a front for donations from other foreign countries. The Government must address this matter in the Bill to ensure the integrity of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) reflects on this, she will understand that it is a greater danger to the coffers of political parties than anything else that the Secretary of State has been asked to do in this House.

Naomi Long: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this was discussed in Committee. I supported the Committee’s recommendation for the loophole to be closed. It is important for transparency and openness, so that people are fully accountable.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
	Many Members highlighted the major issue of dual mandates, and it is a hot political potato. I can speak with some experience, as I entered public life 40 years ago last month when, after a local government reorganisation in 1973, I was elected to the district council for the area in which I live. I represented my area on the council for thirty-seven-and-a-half years. In 1982, I was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and in 1983—30 years ago last month—I was elected to this Parliament. I have 40 years’ experience of elected office right across the spectrum—district council, first and second Assemblies, the forum in between, and Westminster. I noticed what the hon. Member for Belfast East said earlier about “what the public want”. What did the public want? The people decided that I would be elected: they decided; they made the choice. In Assembly elections they had six possibilities, but they chose me as number one. When it came to district council elections there were five other candidates and I was elected first, on the top of the poll. When it came to Westminster elections, I was elected top of the poll. People talk about what the public want and we have to be careful about that, but I speak with all those years of experience in public life.
	We must remember that during those years Northern Ireland was plunged into one of the most bloody and terrifying IRA campaigns. Many of my friends and constituents were butchered by the provisionals. Some of those who carried out or engineered those acts are now strutting around the corridors of power. At that time, the law-abiding people wanted a voice against terror to be heard, but not their voice—they were too afraid. People were very reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. They did not want to come forward to stand for election due to fear and the risk—the very real risk— to their own personal security and that of their families.
	When I held dual mandates, that risk was very real. Putting my head above the parapet meant receiving a real bomb on my 40(th) birthday from the Provisional IRA. Coming to this House and speaking up for the people I represent meant that 50 bullets riddled my house when my family—my wife and my children—were just going into the house. Every window in our house was a bullet-proof window. For 25 years, I had to drive
	around in a police car for protection. That is what it cost to be an elected representative in this House, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the district council. Why was I doing it? It was because others put their trust in me and asked me to do it. They were too afraid. They had to have a voice, however, and they were looking for one, and I was honoured and privileged to be it. Thankfully, we have moved on, and in fact after 37 years, although it was a wrench, I voluntarily stood down from the council. I did not need legislation to tell me I had to stand down from the council if I was to be in the House, and I did not need it to tell me to stand down from the Assembly. I voluntarily stood down from the Assembly, too, and others are now taking my place.
	It is right that we bring others to this House or the other Chambers to be the voice of the people, but never let us forget that those who had those mandates before held them at great personal risk to their lives and their families. When fathers left in the morning, their families did not know whether they would be back again in the evening, so let us be careful when we talk about those dual mandates. In 1973, when I joined the council, what we got financially did not cover the stamps, so we certainly were not in it for the money. I can assure hon. Members that there were not many others offering to take our places, and what we got certainly did not cover the petrol. We did it because we loved our country, we loved our people, and we wanted to be their voice. It is without apology, therefore, that I look back over those years and I thank God that I had the privilege and that I am still standing here, at the will of the people, to be the voice of my constituents. I trust that I will have the opportunity for some years yet.

Bob Stewart: I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. His bravery and that of many other people who stood for elected office in Northern Ireland was reflected by their families, who must have gone through hell and been worried sick. The bravery of those wives, husbands and children should be put on the record, too.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. I certainly pay tribute to the wives, husbands and children of those elected representatives who put their heads above the parapet and were willing to stand. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North was visiting his child in hospital when they tried to murder him. That is what families endured.
	If dual mandates are wrong, this policy of ending them must be implemented evenly throughout the United Kingdom. It would be anomalous to afford the people of Wales and Scotland the right to dual mandates, but deny the people of Northern Ireland the same. We are saying that there must be common ground across the United Kingdom. Not only should Wales follow this lead, but Scotland should put its money where its mouth is and stand behind this proposal, if people believe that it is the right thing to do.
	Non-representation also needs to be ended. I lost my seat in 1997. I had been in for fourteen-and-a- half years, but a boundary change—I believe it was gerrymandering, but that is for another day—sliced the constituency of Mid Ulster in two, creating the constituencies of Mid Ulster and West Tyrone. Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness became Member of Parliament for
	Mid Ulster, so from 1997 until a few months ago, when he stepped down, that constituency had no voice in the House, where decisions were being taken on behalf of his constituents. Despite not coming to represent their people in the House, however, Sinn Fein Members are happy to take the expenses and office costs.
	It is time, then, for people elected to the House of Commons from Northern Ireland to make a decision. If they want their expenses and office costs, they need to demonstrate that they are doing the work, and that means taking their seats. MPs are perfectly at liberty not to take their seats, if they so wish, but the situation where people do not take their seats but are allowed to claim expenses must end. In many ways, non-representation in the Commons is a much greater affront to democracy than dual mandates, and the House must shortly take a decision on this issue. I am happy to welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, but this remains a work in progress.

Mark Durkan: Like others, I am glad of the opportunity to address several matters relating to Northern Ireland. As other hon. Members have said, the many positive recent developments have confirmed the benign trajectory in which Northern Ireland is headed, thanks to the peace process and a well-embedded agreement that gives us a broadly settled process. It has made the difference because it allows us all to give allegiance to shared institutions for the first time, to work through our differences and, I hope, increasingly to work through common challenges and to do so more productively and ambitiously than in the past.
	This is a tapas Bill: there are slivers of meat in it, but there is not very much of it. Some of it might be to some people’s taste, but less so to others, and perhaps we are not quite sure exactly what some of it is and must accept other people’s assurances and technical descriptions of it. On the broad issue of political donations, like others, I recognise that historically there have been serious difficulties and challenges for people engaged in politics, whether by virtue of donating, canvassing or being a party member. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) rightly pointed to the many risks that people have taken in elected politics, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly those who were threatened and victimised in very real and vicious ways.
	I extend that tribute, however, to the many people in political parties more generally who faced such threats, challenges and various levels of intimidation, whether in their neighbourhood or working lives. A forthcoming book on the Glenanne gang will point out that some of its targets were picked precisely because of their membership of, or association with, the Social Democratic and Labour party. Of course, that was a loyalist gang, but members of my party were also targeted by republican paramilitaries for their own twisted reasons. I know that many other people in many other parties have suffered the same.
	All that was true, but things are changing, including the public’s expectations and understanding. When I was leader of my party, I said that the then extension of the anonymity arrangements should be the last one and that we could not keep kicking that can down the road,
	but we now appear to be granting another extension and leaving the way open to another one after that. Hon. Members are right that the anonymity promises on donations made in recent years should be kept, unless people expressly say that they want their donation declared, and I agree that there should be no retrospective revelations to which people have not agreed. But if the public are to accept that sort of protection for historical donations, they will want to know that there will be a definite end to anonymity for future donations. The one should go with the other, on a fair’s fair, everything square basis.
	The question of donations also gives rise to a situation in which people might think that parties have more to hide than they actually have. When I was leader of my party, I said that the change should happen because there was nothing for us to hide. In a small place such as Northern Ireland, people sometimes get suspicious about donations, not only to individual parties but to several parties. They can create suspicion in the mind of the public that decisions are being influenced at various levels and in various policy areas. If the threshold for publication were significantly lowered, some people might worry that complications could arise because they had given to a number of parties on different occasions, or even at the same time. Those issues are going to have to be addressed by the people and the parties concerned, however, and people cannot be protected against that potential for embarrassment under the guise of security sensitivities.
	In respect of sensitivity about donations, I know that my party colleague, Alex Attwood, who is currently the Minister for Environment in Northern Ireland, imposed a rule on himself and his Department that if a planning application came in from anyone whom he was aware of being a donor to our political party, he would declare that fact to his officials. His officials said, “There is no official need to do that. No one has ever thought of doing it before.” But he has made a point of saying that it should be done because, in some people’s eyes, the donation could be a material consideration that may influence him and he must therefore inform his officials. The officials can then bear the information in mind when carrying out their work on the planning application.
	There is an issue beyond the provisions in the Bill on donations and political life in Northern Ireland. Many significant public appointments are made by Ministers in Northern Ireland and perhaps we need to address whether such people who are known donors to parties should be duly registered at departmental level and open to scrutiny. These things should be looked at beyond the level of electoral donations.
	On the question of donations from people based in the Irish Republic, I believe that the current provision is right and equal. We have parties in Northern Ireland that have a Unionist outlook, and those with a nationalist outlook. We also have parties that do not frame themselves specifically in relation to Unionism or nationalism. Within that broad base, if people are able to collect donations and win the support and approval of the members of the body politic throughout the United Kingdom who regard themselves as British, I do not see why those who regard themselves as Irish should not be able to collect donations from the democratic body politic to which they see themselves as belonging—that is, people living on the island of Ireland.

Naomi Long: I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but a more significant issue are the donations that come into Northern Ireland through the Republic of Ireland from international sources—that is, donations that would not be able to come in through the UK but can come in through the Republic. Such donations probably benefit only one party, and it is not here to debate the issue.

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, but I do not believe that the answer is to have a general ban on donations from people living in the Irish Republic. If we were to say that anyone living there who wanted to make a donation had to be registered on the list of electors there, that would go some way towards strengthening the provisions. If there are loopholes that allow moneys that would otherwise be unacceptable to arrive in the north, and if those loopholes are being used to “wash through” money, mechanisms will have to be put in place to stop that happening. Declarations would have to be made in relation to any such money. I would have no problem with a requirement for such declarations, not only from those giving the money to say that it was truly coming from them and not from someone else, but from those receiving it. That would fix minds quite clearly. That is where the responsibility should rest, and that is where the law should be targeted.
	I represent a border constituency. Many of the people who make significant investments in businesses there and make a significant contribution to the economy, not only in Foyle but in the whole of the north-west, live in the south. Some live just a few miles across the border, others live further away. Many of them originate in Derry. There are many families in Derry whose cousinage is in Donegal and in many other parts of the south—

Stephen Pound: Including Mayo.

Mark Durkan: Including Mayo, as the shadow Minister says. I was also glad to hear earlier from the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). Perhaps we have a gathering of the Mayo association here today. I speak as a grandson of Mayo myself, rather than a son.
	The point needs to be recognised that there are many people in the south whose roots are in the north. Many of them have business and professional links with the north, and many of them undertake public appointments there. Thankfully, they are appointed not only by nationalist Ministers. Those people from the south can make a legitimate input into the democratic governance and well-being of the north, and I see no reason to preclude them from doing that through duly registered political donations if they wish to do so.
	We have heard the arguments for and against the dual mandate. I made my own decision on that a number of years ago when I took the personal step of saying that if I was elected as an MP again, I would give up my seat in the Assembly. I did not believe that the dual mandate could be sustained any longer. On that basis, I also resigned the leadership of my party, because I did not think that anyone could seriously try to lead a political party in Northern Ireland without being in the devolved Assembly.
	I took that step after we had been frustrated in our attempts to change the rules. During various negotiations and initiatives, some of us had made the point that we
	needed to draw a line under the dual mandate. We said that the parties needed to agree on a date or a point in the electoral cycle when dual mandates would stop, but it was impossible to reach agreement on that. I recall debates in the Assembly in which the Democratic Unionist party voted against any such move against dual mandates. It praised them, saying that they were the best thing since sliced bread and that they were saving us money. Then, in the wake of the pressures resulting from the expenses scandal, the DUP suddenly started playing leapfrog over the rest of us. It suddenly wanted to get rid of dual mandates, too. In many ways it hid behind the Kelly recommendations, saying that if an outlying date of 2015 were set, that would be the target date towards which it would work.
	Historically, the dual mandate could be justified by the uncertain circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is arguable that many people were able to do great work carrying dual mandates, not least John Hume and Ian Paisley when they were in this House and in the European Parliament. Along with their Ulster Unionist colleague, they were able to do productive and effective work in Europe and to bring home significant benefits. As with the question of openness over donations, however, public expectations have moved on. People can see that circumstances and standards have changed. Change changes things. That is probably the most underestimated fact in politics and democratic life. We need to move on.
	If a limit is, rightly, set on dual mandates in this House, the Bill should also make provision for that in respect of any possible membership of Dail Eireann. Any such provision should apply not only to MPs but to Teachtai Dala. It would be right to extend that to Members of the House of Lords and to Members of Seanad Eireann as well. If the rule specifies membership of one legislative chamber and one only, it should apply regardless. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) that that should apply whether or not the proposed abolition of Seanad Eireann goes ahead. I hope it does not; I would much prefer to see reform of that good constitutional tool. The fact is that people should be members of one legislative chamber and one only.
	As to the size of the Assembly, I made the point in an intervention that the position on which parties were negotiating at the stage when we negotiated the agreement was broadly based on a 90-member Assembly, with five Members for each of the parliamentary constituencies. It was not the case that it was a matter of principle that we wanted the Assembly elected from the existing parliamentary constituencies. The point was that if we were going to get an Assembly established on the back of an agreement, it had to be on the basis of some existing constituencies, and the parliamentary constituencies were obviously the available and relevant ones.
	The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 creates five-year parliamentary boundary reviews, but I think that will cause problems, not just in respect of the potential impact of boundary reviews in parliamentary terms, but in Assembly terms, too. What might appear to be a small change in a constituency in parliamentary terms could be very significant for Assembly members. Somebody’s well-established Assembly bailiwick could be directly split in a way that might appear marginal to the parliamentary constituency, so I think there are difficulties there. I know that there has been
	some discussion in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee about whether the Assembly still needs to rely on or stick to absolute coterminocity of Assembly and parliamentary constituencies for the long term. If we end up having a difficult experience from five-year boundary reviews—I hope this will be revised in the future so that we can move to something more sensible than having reviews for every single Parliament—the Assembly might well be advised to consider something different.
	The position on the number of Members was, as I said, five for each constituency. If, under the boundary reviews, the number of constituencies is reduced, that will obviously reduce the number of Members in the Assembly in turn. In the context of previous negotiations, including those in Leeds castle and elsewhere where there were reviews and half reviews on the agreement, the SDLP put forward its views, but there were no takers for the changes, just as when we offered proposals to improve the transparency of the Assembly and to make it a bit more robust as a chamber of accountability.
	Some of those who talk most about transparency and accountability resisted. I remember Peter Robinson saying at Leeds castle, “Well, we do not want that much accountability.” The proposals did not even go as far as saying that there should be a formal opposition in the Assembly, but sought to ensure that there were ways of holding Ministers to account to the Assembly. One way of doing that was that after budgets, all Ministers would make statements on what they were planning to do with the moneys allocated to them rather than hide behind one statement by the Minister of Finance.
	As other hon. Members have said, the question of opposition is important. When we negotiated the agreement, just as we were clear that the Government would be inclusive for those parties that wished to exercise the right to take their mandate into ministerial office, so, too, the scrutiny and accountability role of the Assembly had to be inclusive. Some of us, perhaps naively, envisaged that members of the Ministers’ own parties would challenge them and put questions to them; unfortunately, that is not what we have. Anyone looking at the Parliament channel, for example, is likely to see question time and debates, and there are more plants than at a garden centre! It is not what we wanted—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentions vegetables in particular, and I am sure his party colleagues will be delighted by that proud reference and strong endorsement.
	The discussion that many people are having is important. What it reflects is not necessarily the absolute need for an opposition that some have seized on; it is more a feeling that there is not enough challenge, scrutiny or debate. Some people think that real debate ends up falling to “The Nolan Show” or other talk-back radio programmes, but questioning and challenging decisions should be taking place in the committees of the Assembly and on its floor. We should have other types of committee —more cross-cutting committees, for example, with the sort of teeth that the Public Accounts Committee has. They might be rated more highly not just by Ministers but by civil servants than they are under the current committee model. As other hon. Members have said, there are a number of things that we can look at.
	On the appointment of the Justice Minister, we recognise that there are a number of anomalies. The proposed changes seem neatly to answer the problem of the d’Hondt excess enjoyed by one party, which goes against the proportionality provisions and the inclusion promise of the agreement. I fear that in resolving the anomaly in the proposed way, however, we will end up creating a predicament for the system and potentially for a party that could find itself typecast, particularly through the role of the Justice Minister, in ways that might well prove frustrating in the future. Other parties might find that frustrating or might abuse their sense of frustration. We need to be careful that in fixing one problem, we do not create another problem for the long term or build a permanent abnormality that imposes an obligation or a limitation on any particular party.

Naomi Long: As my party provides the Justice Minister in the current arrangements, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The arrangements being put in place here would apply equally to any party, and the anomaly would apply regardless of which party provided the Justice Minister. The fix, as it were, would apply regardless, too. I do not think that anybody is typecast in that sense. I would also take issue with the him about what counts as normal. I happen not to think that using d’Hondt to appoint Ministers is normal; it is actually a mechanism to deal with division, which is abnormal. I would not want to move in that direction; I would prefer the other Ministry to move towards cross-community support.

Mark Durkan: I note the hon. Lady’s point of view, but it is not the one from which I come to this debate. I was involved in the negotiation and drafting of parts of the agreement, not least in respect of strand 1. I would certainly defend the understanding and agreement that we secured then, but I would never pretend that we are stuck with it or that we can never adjust or change it. I certainly recognise that when it comes to the institutions and the fundamental architecture we have to see differences between fixtures and fittings. That is why review mechanisms were built into the agreement and why my own party has proposed changes and developments in a number of reviews—and we would certainly envisage more in the future. They should all be based, however, on the firm and clear foundations of inclusion that are guaranteed in the agreement.
	On the issue of the Justice Ministry, I was not saying that it is a given and that it will always go to the Alliance party; I was simply stating a caution, in case things end up being that way. We know all the reasons why the Ministry ended up with an Alliance party member on the first and second occasions. What I am saying is simply a point of caution in that regard.
	When it comes to electing other Ministers by cross-community support, I am disappointed that the Bill does not take the opportunity to restore something that was in the Good Friday agreement—that the First and Deputy First Minister should be elected jointly by cross-community support. That was in the Good Friday agreement, and it was important that the administration of the Executive would be headed and chaired by people who had a mandate from the Assembly and were accountable to it. Instead, what we have is a system whereby those two positions are simply appointed from their respective parties by a letter, which goes to the Speaker. That is not the right and proper way to do this.
	The change in how the First and Deputy First Minister were appointed—no longer elected by the Assembly but simply appointed by their own parties—was a result of a so-called comprehensive agreement in December 2004 between Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments to create a new rule whereby parties could only appoint Ministers if those parties voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. The agreement was published, but because there were not photographs in relation to decommissioning, and people were using language about sackcloth and ashes, it did not stick. However, it remained the desired outcome of Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments until the very day of the St Andrews talks that parties could only be included in government if they voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. That was a complete violation of the basic principle in the Good Friday agreement—the promise of democratic inclusion. The DUP was able to appoint Ministers without having voted for Seamus Mallon or David Trimble; they were able to vote against David Trimble and me, but it did not preclude their holding ministerial office, and rightly so, because that was the promise in the agreement. Similarly, Sinn Fein were able to abstain on the election of the First and Deputy First Minister and still hold ministerial office. The DUP and Sinn Fein, however, were prepared to say that the SDLP, the UUP and, if it qualified, the Alliance party, could only take Ministries if we voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. We would have to submit our mandate to them; we would not even be allowed the right of abstention.
	The first people who would be excluded from office under the agreement, under a Labour Government, were those in the SDLP, not for having committed any crimes or transgression, whether in office, in terms of standards in public life or breaching commitments to peace and non-violence, but simply because we were prepared to exercise our democratic right to abstain on the election of those from other parties. Only because the DUP got the message from us clearly in a meeting upstairs in a Committee Room, on the morning we were all flying to St Andrews, that we would not be voting for them, and we understood that the UUP would not be voting for them, so the DUP would be in the Lobby voting on their own with Sinn Fein—the very thing they wanted to prevent—to elect Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, and only because we stuck to our threat did the DUP scramble to get a different basis whereby people would be appointed to ministerial office by a letter to the Speaker.
	Why are we not returning to the agreement in the Bill? Things seem to be bedded down quite well now between Sinn Fein and the DUP—they seem quite happy to go through the Lobby together on lots of things, whether it is to force through future local government boundaries that suit them, or anything else. If they can use their muscle or mandate together in those respects, why should they not be able to do it in relation to electing the First and Deputy First Minister as originally provided for in the agreement?
	In relation to local government boundaries, Sinn Fein and the DUP put through a Bill a couple of years ago for the appointment of a boundary commissioner, but the Bill actually fixed the boundaries, and all the boundary commissioner could do was pick the names of the councils and make recommendations around some of the wards. The Bill contains other welcome measures,
	on the face of it, to transfer further powers in relation to electoral matters, to change their reserved status, and to give more latitude, potentially, to the Assembly, but we need to register some caution. Decisions that can be taken at Assembly level can essentially be taken by Sinn Fein and the DUP themselves, so we need to be careful about a significant reduction in the size of the Assembly that would mean fewer than five Members per constituency, which will affect proportionality, democratic opportunity and fairness, and about other changes in relation to electoral matters.
	Northern Ireland began with a Parliament set up after partition, and there was proportional representation. One of the first decisions taken was to remove proportional representation in local government, and then to remove proportional representation for the Parliament itself. The rot set in, and the difficulties came from there. If we get to a situation where everybody else’s democratic opportunity is dependent on the decisions of Sinn Fein and the DUP, to borrow from the late, great Paddy O’Hanlon, that is a bit like asking Attila the Hun to mind your horse. We are asking for trouble if we just say, “It will be up to them.” We ought perhaps to consider ensuring that the Electoral Commission has a bigger, stronger and more defined role in relation to such matters, rather than leaving them to the Executive level and to some parties in particular.
	There are other aspects of the Bill, including in relation to court and other matters. Will the Minister clarify the intention in paragraph 5 of the schedule on court rules, in relation to inquests, and the reference to the
	“relevant authority must allow or disallow rules submitted to it”?
	Is the phrase “relevant authority” intended to allow for both the devolved and the Westminster authority in respect of different issues? In the past, we have seen attempts in the House to change the rules on inquest to provide for secret inquests, and to provide for inquests in which coroners could be sacked and others appointed, the implications of which are very sensitive in Northern Ireland, not least in relation to many cases, even some of the outstanding inquest cases, from the troubles, or some cases in which new inquests are being requested.
	Other Members have raised the issue about the National Crime Agency, which I do not want to leave unaddressed. My party colleagues have been working with others to get as many of the issues resolved as possible. Our concerns are genuine and do not relate to trying to prevent asset recovery or other powers being fully exercised in Northern Ireland. Nobody has demanded and defended strong powers of asset recovery and wanted them robustly used more than the SDLP, which is why our initial concerns were about the establishment of SOCA potentially undoing the good work of the Assets Recovery Agency. However, we do have concerns, with which hon. Members should be familiar, in relation to the primacy of the Patten policing model and the primacy of the Chief Constable accountable to the Policing Board.
	First, we are concerned that that was significantly breached in relation to the St Andrews agreement by the rerouting in relation to national security so that even MI5 liaising with the PSNI would be beyond the purview of the Policing Board or the Police Ombudsman, and we do not want the National Crime Agency compounding that. The Secretary of State is aware, as
	I have informed her, of our concerns about how SOCA’s pursuit of some people is being abused by MI5 putting those same people under untoward pressure to work for it, putting them in a position of real and likely threat. We want those issues resolved. I cannot look in the eye those people who come to me with genuine concerns and stress and say, “Yes, I believe in your concerns. I am trying to give representation to them,” and then blandly go along with other changes without getting the necessary safeguards. The problems are real, but I believe we can come up with real answers to them. I commend those in my party and others who have been working to get those answers.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the opportunity to debate the principles of a Bill that will have a significant impact on the way in which our relatively immature democracy in Northern Ireland may develop in the years ahead. I fully acknowledge that we have travelled a considerable distance, and—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—in a very positive direction, but much work remains to be done.
	We want to work with the Government to bring about the economic renewal of our local economy, and for that purpose we must consider a number of ways of rebalancing the economy. We are also concerned about the unfairness of many of the welfare reform proposals. We do not oppose the principle of welfare reform, but we do oppose a number of its probable consequences. Many people who are already disadvantaged will become even more disadvantaged, and many who are currently in work will find themselves out of work and, possibly, in a grave financial position.
	Those are the challenges that face any Administration or Executive, and they also face the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. We want to work with the Government to meet those challenges. We also want to work with the Government, and with the Irish Government—they being the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement—on proposals for a comprehensive reconciliation process, because that is one of the aspects of a divided society that has not yet been fully addressed.
	I recall that several years ago, when I was a Minister in the Department for Social Development, there were proposals for shared housing and shared neighbourhoods. Some of us had already done a great deal of work on that—work that began a considerable time ago, not just a few weeks ago—when others had not bought into the process. I am glad to say that they have done so now, and I hope that our aims will be fulfilled. However, there is still much to be done to help victims, to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, and to ensure that everyone fully embraces the concepts of equality and human rights.
	There are undoubtedly some good things in the Bill. Progress has been made towards greater transparency in relation to political donations, and most of the political double-jobbing is to be terminated. The Bill also covers issues connected with electoral registration. I was glad to hear from the Minister that he intended to ensure that there would be a door-to-door canvass, and
	that money had been provided for the purpose. All of us, including the Government, should take a proactive approach to ensure that everyone has proper access to a franchise, and should encourage people—irrespective of the party for which they vote—to exercise their franchise. That is the only way of enabling them to have a say in the shaping of their local democracy and the democratic process.
	There is one great mystery at the heart of the Bill, and I should like to get to the bottom of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the answer to my question—in conjunction, obviously, with the Secretary of State. I refer to the proposal to extend the term of the Northern Ireland Assembly by a further year and to hold elections not in May 2015, the date presented to our electorate, but in May 2016. The Government appear to have performed a U-turn. Why the change? It is fundamental that such action should not be taken without the permission of the people, who gave the parties a mandate to govern for four years rather than five. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consultation paper acknowledged that
	“There are serious constitutional implications in extending the term of any elected body after it has been elected”,
	and since then the Government have generally poured cold water on the extension proposition.
	We have heard arguments about the need to bring Northern Ireland into line with the other devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, but they do not stack up. The Secretary of State’s consultation paper states:
	“The Government does not believe that there needs to be uniformity across the…UK”.
	More important is the fact that electors in Scotland and Wales knew before they voted that they would be electing Governments for an extended five-year term. In Northern Ireland, this is being imposed on people. The “conformity with Scotland and Wales” argument does not solve our mystery.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Lady is elaborating on the fact that the term of the Assembly is being extended by a year, and that that is being done without asking people for their permission. Is she suggesting that there should be a referendum to ask people if they want to vote again before they have decided that they want to vote again? In what way should people be asked other than through their representatives here in Parliament?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Member for East Derry for his intervention. [Interruption.] He knows perfectly well that we had a mandate, and that those of us who were elected to the Assembly—some of us are no longer there—had a contract with the population of Northern Ireland for four years, and not five years. I believe that we should not delude the public, but should conform to what was in our contract with them.

William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has suggested that we should conform with the wishes of the general public. My hon. Friend was elected to a constituency in the House of Commons which is termed East Londonderry. Has any Member a right to change the name of my hon. Friend’s constituency? Is it in order?

Dawn Primarolo: That is not a point of order, but is a point for debate in the Chamber. Members are responsible for what they say in the Chamber. It is not a matter for the Chair unless it constitutes disorderly conduct, and it is not disorderly at the moment.

William McCrea: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the name of a constituency in the House of Commons a point for debate, or is it a point of fact? According to the Register, my hon. Friend was elected to represent East Londonderry.

Dawn Primarolo: With respect, the names of constituencies are set by legislation, not by what any one Member may say in the House. I repeat what I said a moment ago. This is a matter for debate, because it does not change the name of the constituency as laid down by Parliament.

Margaret Ritchie: I accept the essence of the point of order. I acknowledge that the constituency is probably classified as Londonderry East, but my shorthand for it happens to be “East Derry”. I do not think that there is any particular difference of opinion. [Interruption.] May I continue?
	There was the equally weak explanation that although doing so would save money, it would be unmanageable to hold two or three different elections on the same day. Wrong again! The Secretary of State’s consultation paper acknowledged that, if it was required—I quote for the purpose of accuracy and veracity—
	“both the Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission are confident that three polls can be delivered”.
	So “administrative difficulty” does not solve the mystery.
	Could it be that, while the Government’s consultation paper questioned the idea of extending the term of the Assembly, citing grounds of democratic legitimacy as well as questioning any practical need at all, the Government changed their mind as a result of the responses that they had received during the consultation exercise? Was the Secretary of State overwhelmed by consultees pressing for the extension of the life of the current Northern Ireland Assembly? No; that is not the answer either. Several political parties, including my own—the SDLP—and the Ulster Unionists, as well as the Green party, Conservatives and others, were emphatically against this anti-democratic proposal. The DUP and the Alliance were in favour of it, and Sinn Fein did not participate in the formal consultation exercise. Overall, of those consultees who responded directly on this question, 85% were against extending the Assembly term.
	At this point the Secretary of State might say that a combination of the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance can command a majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which represents broad support for the extension, but the Secretary of State has already acknowledged that she had a letter from those parties as far back as June 2012, some three months before she embarked on her consultation; she knew then that the leaders of those three parties all wanted to extend the life of the Assembly. Indeed, elsewhere in this Bill there are provisions aimed at correcting the anti-democratic nature of the Minister for Justice’s current position, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.
	The Secretary of State already knew the views of these parties when she set the height of the bar that had to be cleared if the proposal to extend the term of the Assembly was to go anywhere.
	In full knowledge of the views of the parties of the OFMDFM—the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Secretary of State summarised the issue in February this year by saying:
	“The Government has consistently made clear that any move to extend the length of the current term could only be made if there was a clearly demonstrable public benefit, and a very large measure of agreement in Northern Ireland.”
	The Secretary of State further concluded that the responses to the consultation
	“tend to suggest that there does not exist, as yet, significant agreement to this proposal.”
	I am sure the Secretary of State would not disagree with what she said then.
	That does not help us much with the solving of our mystery, however. The Secretary of State set a clear test of a
	“very large measure of agreement”
	and concluded that the agreement demonstrated so far had not been “significant”. So in February of this year, in full knowledge of the various political parties’ views on extension, the Secretary of State was against it. What changed?
	The Secretary of State also set the test of a “demonstrable public benefit”, but there clearly is not one. OFMDFM Ministers can argue that five years might give the Executive more time to demonstrate its worth, but in fact the opposite is the case. The Secretary of State’s paper of February of this year commented on the “opinion frequently voiced” about
	“the perceived inertia of the Assembly”
	and concluded that
	“extending the term would only add to this.”
	In addition, the CBI expressed concern in its consultation response that, at the end of a four-year programme for government, an additional year could just be a year of unproductive drift. Indeed, the proposal to extend the term takes little account of the very significant public disbenefits of moving to 2016, such as having the election so close to the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising, when certain political extremists will try to raise, and then exploit, community tensions on the nationalist side. There are also sinister elements in loyalism that will try to do the same around the important world war one centenaries. That is not a great time to have an election for a fixed five-year term in a fragile democracy.
	So, with no “large measure” of agreement and no “public benefit”, what could have made the Secretary of State change her mind? Could it have been the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? After all, the views of the Committee on Standards in Public Life were given considerable weight in the Bill’s provisions on double-jobbing. No, however, it is not the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, because, as its Chairman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), said earlier, it did not support the proposal to extend the term either. Indeed, when the Secretary of State met the Committee in March this year, she stated:
	“But it is quite an unusual thing to do, and we would have to be clear about the benefits it would bring, the additional achievements
	that could be made by the Executive in that extra year, and also have a very clear case made publicly to that effect by the Northern Ireland political establishment.”
	So even as late as March this year, the Secretary of State seemed to have no appetite for extending the term of the Northern Ireland Assembly, yet by 9 May, when this Bill was published with the explanatory document, all of that had changed. All of the consultation responses and the Secretary of State’s own decision criteria had been cast aside in just a few short weeks. What changed the mind of the Secretary of State remains a mystery, and it is a mystery that she must unlock; indeed, the Minister must unlock it here tonight, and it will need to be explored further in Committee.
	I believe the decision to extend the Assembly term is an atrocious anti-democratic, and potentially dangerous, development, and flies in the face of most of what the Secretary of State has ever said on the issue. I can find no rational explanation for the change of heart in the Command Paper that was a response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report. The Government do not provide much enlightenment in unlocking the mystery, except that they wish to be consistent with Scotland and Wales in extending the terms of the existing mandates. The Government and Secretary of State have ignored a vital point, however: that the people of Wales and Scotland were aware of the change to the fixed-term mandate before casting their votes in May 2011. The position in Northern Ireland was totally different. The people of Northern Ireland were not involved in this, and they voted for a four-year mandate. The only person who could do something to overrule the Secretary of State is the Prime Minister himself. Is a prime ministerial intervention the answer to our mystery?
	So I put it to the Minister, who will be responding to the debate: how often, and when, did he and the Secretary of State discuss this matter with the Prime Minister? Did the Prime Minister direct the Secretary of State to concede the Assembly’s term extension to those who lobbied him for it? And we know who lobbied him for it: the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party. If he did, what explanation did he give? Can the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State, as it will be in this instance, tell me what impact this sordid U-turn had on the credibility of the Northern Ireland Office and will have on any future NIO consultations? What faith will the people of Northern Ireland have in such consultations? The NIO and the Secretary of State must never forget that she and her equivalent in the Irish Government are the custodians of the Good Friday agreement. [Interruption.] This is no laughing matter, because when we went to vote in the Assembly elections in 2011 we voted for a four-year mandate, so the people will feel duped. Given the weight of evidence against the extension of the Assembly’s term, surely there is some way in which the Government will be prepared to reconsider this fundamentally anti-democratic measure. Obviously we look forward to discussing the issue further in Committee—or perhaps we should start lobbying the Prime Minister.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Ritchie: I wish to make a little more progress and then I would be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he can provide the answer to this mystery, as it
	is important that we find a solution to it. We need to work closely together, in partnership, and we need to ensure that we are able to sustain and maintain our democratic integrity. That is done in the best interests of the wider population of Northern Ireland: not only do the people demand it, but they deserve it, because for many years we lived and worked in that divided society, which in many ways still exists. We were living in the cauldron of violence and terrorism, and that was wrong. I am glad to say that that is largely diminished and we must now move forward into a new scenario.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for Down South for giving way. She has discussed great concerns about the issue relating to the Assembly elections, but had she the same concerns about the change of time scale for the council elections? Did her party express concern when the time scale was changed?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, we have been dealing with the review of public administration in the period of various Ministers, including at least three from the DUP when the RPA was being discussed.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Ritchie: I have not finished this point and I wish to do so, if the right hon. Gentleman will let me. Obviously, there would be concerns, but I also know that it was the DUP and Sinn Fein that insisted that these arrangements for new councils be pushed ahead with—I know that from my colleague the Minister of Environment.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Of course, this is not without precedent because the Northern Ireland Assembly was elected in 1998 on a four-year mandate by the people but that was extended to 2003 with the full support and connivance of the very party that now protests against the very thing that it and the UUP supported back in 1998 to 2003. So it may be that the answer to the mystery is a bit closer to home.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think that there have been some memory losses here. [Hon. Members: “Oh no.”] Oh yes, because I can well recall, as can my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for Foyle—he was Minister for Finance and Personnel and subsequently Deputy First Minister—the considerable periods of suspension, when the people of Northern Ireland suffered dreadfully as the DUP sat outside the Executive and did not participate.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The entire Chamber is debating this Bill, not just the hecklers in one corner of the Chamber. I would appreciate it if we could listen to each speaker courteously. Perhaps we will be able to stop the heckling now and continue with the point being made, bearing in mind that another debate is also scheduled for this evening.

Margaret Ritchie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of your advice on this matter, so I will move towards a conclusion. We have had an interesting debate this evening on the issue.
	Although I would like to see that mystery unlocked this evening, there is also a need for a wider conversation that addresses the next phase of devolution. There is a need to devolve telecommunications and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to Northern Ireland, and we must also consider the character of constitutional discussion and the requirements to secure and advance policing. I will never forget that the SDLP, along with the Ulster Unionists, brought about that change in policing. My party, many times, single-handedly worked to bring about that new dispensation in policing.
	Justice must be discussed, as well as the rights and equality achievements of recent years, and we need a deeper recognition from London of the nature of the Northern Ireland economy. We require further debate about those issues—not reserved to certain individuals, but in this Chamber and with these Ministers—and about our welfare profile and the impact of welfare changes on the economy of Northern Ireland and on the general health and well-being of our local population, the potential for the bedroom tax and the geopolitical considerations of housing and social housing location in Northern Ireland. Above all, the unfinished work of reconciliation and healing must take place within the north, on the island and between Britain and Ireland, and we must consider how London can move away and move with the Irish Government to help us to address issues to do with the past.
	It is important that we discuss all those issues within the emerging politics that are Northern Ireland and that are the island of Ireland. We all look forward to such a participative democracy on these issues and to getting answers about how the decisions were made about moving from four to five year mandates. The people did not elect Members to the Assembly for five years, but for four. As that is the kernel of the Bill, I feel that the people I represent deserve an answer.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am warming to this idea of using shorthand for parliamentary constituencies. Perhaps in future I will refer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as the Member for a river in Londonderry, and perhaps the SDLP will think again—

Mark Durkan: That’s not shorthand—it’s longer.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: It might be longer, but, considering the length of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—[Interruption.] Length seems to be very important indeed.
	I want to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) about extending the term of the Assembly. This year is the year of culture in Londonderry and I think the SDLP should consider entering some of the competitions, particularly storytelling. The hon. Lady would tell a very good mystery story indeed.
	Let us deal with political history and reality. The principle that the hon. Lady seeks to express is that when the public vote for an elected body for a fixed term, if we seek to alter that term we should go back to the people before we do so. In the stakes of political U-turns, political changes of mind and the irony of taking up a position one day and then advocating the opposite of what they have done in the past, the SDLP must take first prize.
	The Assembly elected in 1998, after the Belfast agreement, was elected for a four-year term. I accept that there were periods when the Executive did not function, but Assembly Members continued to be paid and to hold office throughout that period. There was no election until November 2003, I believe. Mathematics was not my strongest subject at school, but I know enough to say that November 2003 back to May or June 1998 is a lot more than four years. Did we hear the SDLP— the largest nationalist party at that time—say, “This is dreadful! We must go back to the people. We must have an election.”?

Mark Durkan: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, as leader of the SDLP at the time, advocated that the election, if it was to take place, should take place at the due time, on the due date. The British Government of the day said, “No. We have negotiations going on with the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein. They need the summer to work at this and to move things on. They need more time.” I opposed moving the election day, and I imagine that John Reid, who was misquoted earlier, could confirm that that was the position I stated to him as Secretary of State.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Just as, no doubt, the SDLP opposed the extension of local government terms that occurred in Northern Ireland. Let us not hear this drivel about how it is somehow undemocratic in principle to move the date of an election. When it suited the SDLP’s political purposes to have the term of the Assembly extended, the term of the Assembly was extended by fiat of the Northern Ireland Office—not even by coming to this House.

Nigel Dodds: Given that these points were made so strongly by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), it is right that we get the facts right. As for local government, this is not ancient history. Only in the last mandate, the term of local government was extended from elections in 2009 to elections in 2011, so that instead of serving four years, councillors had six years. The SDLP did not object—[Interruption.] It did not object. In fact, it supported the move.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank my right hon. Friend for making precisely the point that I have been making: when it is politically advantageous for members of the SDLP to do something, principle does not come into it, but when they consider themselves potentially disadvantaged—I am not sure why they feel they in particular would be disadvantaged by this provision of the Bill—all of a sudden, they find a principle on which to take a stand. Well, we are not into revisionism. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you study the psychology of Northern Ireland, you will find that there are two different approaches to history: there is the revisionist approach, where you rewrite the facts to suit your argument, depending on where you are standing at the time; and then there is the approach that says that what is fact is fact, and it should be recorded as fact. On this issue—

Mark Durkan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I think I have given way enough. The SDLP is backpedalling furiously on this issue. SDLP Members know the reality: they have decided to make a point on the Bill tonight, but it is a bogus point—one on which their own record, when it is subjected to scrutiny, does not stand up for a moment.
	Today, we have heard from the leader of the SDLP about the need to make progress towards reconciliation. On this point, we are agreed: we do need to make progress towards reconciliation; we do need to address the issues of the past. I too was struck by the comments made by young Hannah Nelson last week at the Waterfront hall. She said, yes, we have a past and we most certainly cannot forget what happened in the past. We must acknowledge the hurt and the pain suffered during those dark, dark years of the troubles, and the victims need to be acknowledged and recognised. But we also want to help to move Northern Ireland forward. I really do not think it is helpful when during efforts to move Northern Ireland forward and to get a discourse, a dialogue, going about how to deal with those matters, people resort to old insults such as, “All you lot are bigots.” That really does not engender the sort of political climate we need to make progress on reconciliation. What must the young people of south Belfast be thinking this evening, when their Member of Parliament stands up in the House and describes the leading party of one side of the community in Northern Ireland as a bunch of bigots? Is that conducive to the kind of reconciliation that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) claims he wants to achieve?
	What does not help towards reconciliation is having political parties that posture on the one hand as being the moderate voice and, at the same time, take actions that can have only one effect, which is to cause hurt and pain on the other side of the political divide in Northern Ireland. That is why I challenged the hon. Gentleman on the point about reconciliation. It does not help when, in Newry and Mourne district council, councillors from his party support the renaming of a children’s play park in Newry after a dead IRA terrorist—and not just any dead IRA terrorist but a terrorist who was convicted of a number of offences, including possession of a weapon, which was used in the murder of 10 Protestants in Kingsmill in south Armagh.
	One might think that a progressive party that claims to be a moderating voice and which wants to promote reconciliation might reflect for a moment on the fact that supporting the naming of a children’s play park after someone with such a record might be offensive to a section of our community, and might cause hurt to the families of those killed in the Kingsmill massacre. It might be a retrograde step for our wish to move Northern Ireland beyond the dark days that we witnessed in the past.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman rightly speaks passionately about the feelings in this instance of the relatives of those who were murdered in such a vicious, sectarian way at Kingsmill. I have been on the record, as have party colleagues, both publicly and privately, in saying that we thought what our councillors did at that time was a mistake. I have subsequently been advised by those councillors that this was not the first naming of the park—it was named 10 years ago, and the vote was simply to confirm the original decision. When the decision was first made, no objections were
	made by any Unionist councillor present, and the vote that my party colleagues supported was also a vote for a procedure that would ensure that it could not happen in future—nothing could be named in such a way again. I fully accept his criticism, but I urge him to look at the wider facts, and in saying so, I do not detract in any way from the important point that he has made in relation to the relatives of the Kingsmill massacre.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have gone a little wide of the Bill in the exchanges that have just occurred, but I think that this matter has been well aired on the Floor of the House. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman returned to the specific provisions in the Bill.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We welcome most of the Bill’s provisions. However, we will want to table a number of amendments in Committee. The past few years have been difficult and challenging. As the Secretary of State said—and she was echoed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—the Bill, and the manner of the Bill, represent a mark of progress. We are beginning to deal with issues that one might describe as reasonably normal. Nevertheless, there is a legacy that we still need to address. I am not sure that the Bill is the right vehicle for taking the initiative, but there is a need to address elements of the legacy.
	Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have not always regarded elements of the peace process as something we could fully embrace. It has been difficult—I accept that it has been difficult for both sides in Northern Ireland—and challenging. Elements of the peace process have caused people a lot of pain and hurt, not least the early release of prisoners, and so on.
	However, there is one aspect that goes to the heart of the sense of injustice felt by many victims in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community. I am disappointed that the Bill has not yet provided us with an opportunity to address this and I think it ought to do so. That relates to the definition of a victim. In Northern Ireland at present—this is hard to believe, but it is true—a victim of the conflict, if I may use that term, is defined as anyone, no matter who or what they were, who lost their life in the course of the troubles.
	Let us consider that for a moment. It includes, in effect, the people who pulled the trigger, who wore the balaclavas, who were members of illegal organisations, who planted the bombs and who skulked in the shadows if they lost their lives, sometimes through their own actions—killed by their own bomb, as in the case, for example, of Thomas Begley in the Shankill bombing in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Thomas Begley blew himself up with his own bomb and murdered nine—I think it was—innocent people that day on the Shankill. Thomas Begley, under the definition of a victim, is as much a victim as the innocent men, women and children whom he killed that day on the Shankill road.
	Equally, the definition covers the attack that occurred in Loughinisland in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down, where six people were killed in a public bar while watching a World cup football game.
	They were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The irony is that every one of those six victims is equated with the people who committed the murders. If, for example, one of the loyalist group that killed those six men subsequently lost his or her life, they would be regarded as a victim.
	I cannot come to terms with that. I cannot believe that in dealing with the past—and we must address the legacy issues—we can continue to go forward with a definition that says, “If you were a child walking down the street or going into a fish shop on the Shankill road with your mother on a Saturday afternoon and your life was cruelly cut down, you are the same as the person who, that morning, planned the attack, primed and transported the bomb to the scene and then detonated the bomb.” I cannot accept ever that it is right to equate the bomber with the innocent civilian, no matter who or what side the victims came from.

Naomi Long: The current definition of a victim is a very sensitive issue and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is something that we need to discuss, but I take issue with what he suggests. The definition of a victim ensures that the needs of everyone who is a victim—for example, the mother of the bomber, who may have suffered real pain and grief, in the same way as the husband of an innocent person who was blown up—are addressed in the same way. What it does not do and what it should not do is create moral equivalence between the two people. We have to be careful how we treat individuals who have suffered, but accept that the definition does not create a moral equivalence, because it should not and it does not.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The problem is that it creates a legal equivalence. That is the difficulty we have. When it comes to administering victims services—I was the victims Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive for a time—it creates a problem. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly I introduced a private Member’s Bill to change the definition of a victim, and I hear the point that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is making but, for me, the person who was engaged in a terrorist act when he or she lost their life ought not to be legally equated, even if in our minds they are not morally equated, with their innocent victims. I believe that is a matter for Parliament to address, which is why in considering the Bill we will want to explore it further with the Government. I am not convinced that there will be the circumstances in which we can get a political consensus in Northern Ireland on the definition of a victim, simply because of the nature of the parties we are dealing with.
	The hon. Member for Belfast East talked about moral equivalence. I believe that Parliament has a moral responsibility to examine this issue, for the victims back home in Northern Ireland and indeed the victims here. I have talked with victims of bombings in Belfast and met victims’ groups here in London. I have met people who lost loved ones or were badly injured, for example in the Canary Wharf bomb, and they feel the same way. They do not believe that there should be this legal equivalence.
	In conclusion, although we welcome many elements of the Bill, we believe that there are things that need to be addressed, and we look forward to raising those further in the course of our consideration of the Bill.

Stephen Pound: When my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) sat down to plan how best to celebrate her birthday, which is today, she probably had in mind some clubbing in Coatbridge, rather than sitting here for the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. However, I like to think that the evening she has spent in our company has been rewarding. I have no doubt that the whole House will join me in wishing her the happiest of birthdays and hope that this occasion has been something of a present for her.
	I think that those who gently denigrated the Bill as some sort of sweeping-up Bill, portmanteau Bill or bits-and-pieces Bill missed the fact that crucially important business has been discussed here tonight. As we heard in the last speech, some of the most important issues we ever discuss in the House have been heard on the Floor tonight. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the calm, sensible, serious and, above all, positive way in which she introduced the debate, and she was optimistic where optimism could be justified. I think that it was a first-class presentation that set the tone.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whom we must now call the senior shadow Secretary of State, as we have new categories, spoke marvellously. Listening to him speak about his adventures, and from the number of times he appears in Northern Ireland, one might wonder whether there are not dozens of doppelgangers, or Coaker clones, because how else could he be in so many places at the same time? I think that we are simply fortunate that there is just one of him, but one with an enormous amount of energy. His comments about the Theatre of Witness production of “From the Rubble” at St Ethelburga’s church were extremely well made, and we should all listen to that and perhaps see it ourselves. He also mentioned the National Crime Agency, as a number of Members did later, which I think is one of the many aspects that will be discussed in Committee, for there is much business to be done there.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, showing his usual great respect for the House by flying in from Belfast, and probably missing his lunch, rightly paid credit to the role of the Committee—[Interruption.] He is nodding rather painfully, which implies that he did miss his lunch, so I hope that he has a decent supper tonight. Certainly, his work on pre-legislative scrutiny has been greatly appreciated.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) used an expression that we kept returning to in different forms. He talked about the stability that we take for granted. I will add that we must never take it for granted. He also introduced the role of Tony Blair. I was as delighted as the next person to hear the great former leader of our nation mentioned on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] No, we need to hear about him more often. John Major was also mentioned, and for all I know Martin Mansergh and Albert Reynolds might have been mentioned, but I must have missed them. It was, as ever, a wise, serious and sagacious contribution from the right hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) tested the tolerance of the House. He claims to have spent many a year scoffing Ulster fries.
	The evidence before us—this slim youth in a well cut, well fitting suit and hardly a spare microgram of avoir-du-poids about his person—rather indicates that the closest he has ever come to an Ulster fry has been through the window of a café. However, he has time to make up for his past transgressions.
	The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), I am glad to say, referred to a comment made by the shadow Secretary of State in our previous debate—that devolution does not mean disengagement. That is one of the most crucial statements we have heard and we must never, ever forget it.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) took us on a marvellous, magnificent tour d’horizon through the rolling mists of history. I knew that as soon as Lough Erne was mentioned, the “dreary steeples of Fermanagh” would come in somewhere; it had to happen. The hon. Gentleman spoke with that mixture of erudition, elegance and grace for which he is so well known.
	On the subject of erudition and grace, I turn to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who again showed that, when it comes to understanding the basis of what we are talking about and cutting through the persiflage, very few can match her. She drew the House’s attention to the fact that this is only the second uninterrupted full term of the Assembly. We must never forget that; we are that close to how things used to be.
	The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) referred to his grandfather from County Mayo and his experience on the Somme; I think the hon. Gentleman was immediately signed up to the Mayo Association on the basis of that. It was a good contribution that reminded us of how close the links are between our islands and how the bloodlines flow in both directions.
	Rather worryingly, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) started to go into a cost-benefit analysis of representatives. A few Members looked a little anxious as he went down the various costs, values and benefits. When he then whipped from his pocket a series of multiple passports, we wondered whether he was supplementing his income with a bit of printing on the side. However, we all know that the hon. Gentleman is above that sort of thing. If, however, he happens to have a spare passport, I am sure that he will let us know.
	I do not think I have ever heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) speak more movingly than he did tonight. We have heard some superb speeches from the hon. Gentleman and tonight’s was absolutely magnificent. He talked about moving at a proper pace, which is very important. We must realise that we cannot achieve everything overnight. He also talked about the increase in employment, particularly high-skilled employment, in his constituency. He then mentioned his proud history of topping the poll over 40 years in multi-Member constituencies. I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman’s music, of which I have quite a collection. One of my favourites of his songs is entitled “Still Blessed”. May I say that his constituents are still blessed?
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) once again revealed to us the sophisticated, cosmopolitan ambiance of Derry in referring to the “tapas Bill”.
	I have sat in Sandinos wondering what on earth “tapas” were—I thought they were something water came out of.
	[Interruption.]
	The Minister of State wants to know what “tapas” are; if somebody does know, perhaps they will tell him. The hon. Member for Foyle made the point that the “tapas Bill” had only slim strips of meat in it. I would say that there is a lot of meat and that even more will be discovered in Committee. It is very important that we pick up on these points.
	Extremely important points were raised about donations from the Republic of Ireland. We cannot forget or stop talking about this issue. There are people who feel strongly where their homeland is and cannot accept talk of not receiving donations from somewhere just over the border.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the positive direction of travel. She also rather went off on an Agatha Christie track about the mysteries of South Down. Personally, I prefer Colin Bateman to Agatha Christie. If Colin Bateman were to venture a little south of Belfast, perhaps South Down, there is a mystery there for him to work on.
	The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), with his marvellous analysis of revisionism, proved yet again that in certain parts of these islands only the future is certain and the past is always changing. He finished on an extremely serious point when he talked about the legacy, which is an issue that we cannot forget.
	After all the speakers we have heard today, I have but one regret. There was one voice missing. I am a great admirer of the crystalline clarity—the pellucid prose—of the Strangford Seannachie. Sadly, that proud voice was silent tonight, but I suspect that we will hear it again, and again, and again.
	Very important business has been discussed on the Floor of the House and will be discussed in Committee. There are clearly huge issues regarding representation, donations, transparency and the role of the Justice Minister that have not gone away and still need to be considered. We have had a good Second Reading debate; I do not think anyone can deny that. On occasion we have ranged rather further and wider than many of us thought we would, but it has been to a good end. We now have a basis for a proper discussion in Committee.
	I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and close with my initial comment: the Secretary of State spoke very wisely, sensibly and warmly when she introduced the Bill, and I thank and pay credit to her for that.

Michael Penning: It is a privilege and an honour to wind up this debate, which so many people have taken part in. I think that I counted 16 hon. Members who participated, and that will now include me, with some 20 interventions, so there has been a lot of generosity.
	At the outset, let me reiterate the points made about the G8 and say how proud I was as Minister of State to be at Aldergrove with the Lord Lieutenant for the arrival of the Heads of State and Prime Ministers and to be the greeter on the tarmac. It was an honour and a privilege to be able to welcome the eight biggest leaders of the world to Northern Ireland, and then to receive the sort of comments that I have been getting back,
	particularly in the past couple of days from the Japanese, who were here early, stayed in the centre of Belfast, and were simply thrilled. Many people had concerns before they came—I think that is understandable—but Northern Ireland has showed them the way forward.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland police force and the other agencies, particularly the 3,800-plus police from Great Britain who volunteered to come over to be part of the G8 and make it such a safe event. We now look ahead to the world police and fire games and the marching season. Perhaps I am being slightly naive, but I am very positive and believe that even though we may have some difficulties throughout the summer, Northern Ireland wants to go forward, as we have been saying.
	I was a little concerned when the drafting of the Bill took place. Putting the word “miscellaneous” in the title of a Bill means that we will have a very wide-ranging debate on lots of different things. We can have that wide-ranging debate in Committee, which will be on the Floor of the House for clauses 1 to 9. It is right and proper that the debate has the time that it needs not only here, but up on the Committee Corridor.
	I will not go through every hon. Member who has spoken, which the shadow Minister did brilliantly. I thank him for his kind comments about the Secretary of State. Hopefully he will say nice things about me in the future, but I very much doubt it. We have had a wide-ranging debate, as is right. Many hon. Members do not agree with each other on certain issues to do with the Bill and with how Northern Ireland is progressing, but this is where such issues should be debated and thrashed out.
	The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that this Bill might not be the right place to talk about victims. I tend to agree with him on that. We need to find a way in which that debate can take place, but this miscellaneous Bill might not be the right place. However, I will consider the amendments that are tabled.
	The Government considered carefully what could be in the Bill as normalisation progresses. I agree with the many hon. Members who have said that we need to be careful. We do not want to lose what we have got by going too fast, but we do not want the situation to stagnate.
	I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) feels that there has been some kind of conspiracy. I will not go as far as the shadow Minister. I assure her that not just the Secretary of State but the Government have looked carefully at extending the term. Having said that, I have had no conversations with the Prime Minister about it and I do not think that the Secretary of State has either, and she has sat through nearly the whole debate. The decision was made by us in the Northern Ireland Office and by the Government. I believe that extending the term to 2016 is right and proper. I hope and expect that the other devolved Assemblies will take that forward. A consultation did take place, but one large party did not take part in it. However, it did give its views to me and the Secretary of State.

Margaret Ritchie: rose—

Michael Penning: I will not give way, because I have to sit down in the next few minutes, but there will be plenty of time to debate that matter in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.
	The Government are adamant that we want to move towards openness about donations to political parties. I think that everybody agrees that it would be wrong to bring that in retrospectively. We will not expose people who have already given donations in good faith to that.
	The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said that there is no longer such a risk. I hope that I am summarising her comments correctly. All I can say is that every day, I consider appeals against refusals for close protection weapons and home protection, where the system has ruled that somebody does not need those things.

Naomi Long: rose—

Michael Penning: No, I will not give way.
	I have to consider such decisions every day because the situation is not normalised. If one person is put at risk, that is not right. We consider such cases individually and the security agencies and the police are there to help us with that.
	It is wrong in a democracy to say that if a person is not willing to put themselves at risk, they should not be able to donate. In a democracy, we want people to participate. We want people to stand for office. We have heard about the bravery of people who have stood for office, whether in a council, at the Assembly or in Parliament, over many years. However, there are other ways to be brave in the democratic process. There are people and families who want to support politicians and participate in local democracy. It is important that people and companies want to put their hard-earned money into a political party. It helps the party and it helps to promote democracy within their society. We will look closely at that matter.
	There is nothing personal in stopping dual mandates. I assure the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) of that. We are just following the trend of the political parties in Northern Ireland and putting into statute what was started many years ago.
	There are matters that we can discuss at length in Committee and there will be amendments that we can consider. However, we must realise what the Bill is about. It is about process and the normalisation of Northern Ireland. It is about ensuring that Northern Ireland can get as close as possible to the democracy and institutions that the rest of the United Kingdom has, which is what we all want. I have not had time to go through every comment and detail. We will address some of them in correspondence before the Committee stage, so that hon. Members know the Government’s view. This has been the sort of good and wide-ranging debate that the House is renowned for, and is exactly the sort of debate that we should be having. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

northern ireland (miscellaneous provisions) bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill:
	Committal
	(1) Clauses 1 to 9 shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	(2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Committee
	(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(4) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 July 2013.
	(5) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	(6) When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Public Bill Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Public Bill Committee.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(7) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(8) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	(9) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House or proceedings on Consideration or Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(10) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mike Penning.)
	Question agreed to.

Backbench Business

Careers Advice in Schools

Dawn Primarolo: If you could take 10 minutes, Mr Birtwistle, I think we will be able to get the other speakers in.

Gordon Birtwistle: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of careers advice in schools for 12 to 16 year olds.
	I will do my best to keep to 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting this subject forward for debate today. One of the main reasons that I wanted this subject to come before the House was so that I could set out the business reasons for careers advice. There is a major boom in manufacturing that is being put in doubt by a lack of skills and the age profile of the people working in the industry. I will provide some statistics relating to my constituency of Burnley. Cities Outlook 2013 placed Burnley 10th in the country for private sector job growth: growth of 3.5% in the past 18 months against an average of 1%. That is a remarkable recovery, and it happened because we are a manufacturing town. Burnley has climbed 16 places to 22nd out of 63 UK cities in the recovery from recession, and is rated as No. 1 out of 63 cities for the proportion of jobs in manufacturing. We are one of the top manufacturing towns in the country.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend, coming as he does from my home town of Burnley, for securing the debate. With engineering and manufacturing companies reporting recruiting difficulties because of skills shortages and too few students choosing to study engineering and manufacturing, does he agree with the North West Business Leadership Team’s recent report, “Skills for Industry”, that the creation of a single, signposted point of contact to aid recruitment into these fields—a recognised organisation for employers offering jobs, and for students and their careers advisers who are interested in applying to do engineering and manufacturing—is urgently needed?

Dawn Primarolo: This debate ends at 10 pm. I would like interventions to be brief and to follow the courtesies and convention for them to be relevant to the point being made by the hon. Member at the moment the intervention occurs. We will then get everyone in.

Gordon Birtwistle: I have read that report and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
	The Paris air show took place recently and it is a fantastically successful showcase for the British aerospace industry. We are a small country, but we are second in the world for aerospace manufacture. I spoke to Martin Wright, the chief executive of the North West Aerospace Alliance. I said, “You must be absolutely delighted with what has happened at the Paris air show, with Rolls-Royce and Airbus getting big orders.” He said, “Yes, we are absolutely delighted, but we have a major problem: the capacity is full. We cannot produce the product we are selling at the Paris air show.” When I asked him why, he
	said, “Well, there are plenty of companies doing it, but the problem is they come up against a brick wall of skills shortages.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the skills shortages happening now, but even worse those that will happen in future, are of major concern to business. We need to resolve that problem.

Jim Shannon: The aerospace firm Magellan, which employs many people and apprentices in Northern Ireland and my constituency, has a co-ordinated plan working with schools for 12 to 16-year-olds and those going into further education. Is that the sort of plan the hon. Gentleman would like to see across the United Kingdom?

Gordon Birtwistle: Yes, that is what I am trying to persuade the Government to do.
	Why careers advice? Careers advice for young people should start at aged 11 when a child leaves junior school and moves into secondary school.

Elizabeth Truss: Earlier.

Gordon Birtwistle: Yes, and even earlier.
	I want to share some examples with the House of the problems there are with our careers advice provision. I spoke to a young lady who went to college in Blackpool. When it came to choosing a career, she said she wanted to be an engineer. Her teachers and careers advisers said, “You’re far too clever to be an engineer. You should be a doctor or a lawyer.” She said, “Well, I can’t stand the sight of blood and the last thing I want to be is a lawyer.” She got a job as an apprentice at BAE Systems at Warton and last year was awarded the apprentice of the year award. BAE Systems sent her to university and she is now on a fast track to management within the company.
	The second example is of a young gentleman who went to college in Chester. When he left Chester, he went to Oxford. He was at Oxford university for three months and hated it—he thought it was a complete waste of time and that he was spending money for no return—so he left and got a job as an apprentice at Airbus. When he had served his time at Airbus, the company sent him to university, and he is now a section leader with Airbus. He was pleased to tell me that he had just bought a brand-new Mini and had been delighted to go around on a Friday night, pick up his Oxford friends and take them out for a drink. He had been earning while learning—that is our new apprentice slogan—and so could afford to buy a new Mini, while all his friends who went to Oxford were having problems, could not get a job and had debts coming out of their ears. He was happy to take them out for a drink in his brand-new car on a Friday night.
	A wide range of careers advice is required from age 11, but what can we do about it? What careers advice is being offered in our schools? I suggest it is minimal. It is minimal because many of the people giving it have only ever been teachers and unfortunately have never been in the workplace—there are jobs, particularly in Burnley, they do not even know exist. There is light on the horizon, however: there is a company in Burnley called Positive Footprints. A young lady called Lesley Burrows,
	along with three of her friends, Josh, Lynne and Sarah-Jane, set up this company. She is working in a couple of schools where she has set up a virtual jobcentre. From age 11, every time a child comes to school, they will walk through a jobcentre in which are displayed every job available in Burnley and the surrounding area. Those young people can see what is available and can approach one of these four people and ask them, “What is this job?” Positive Footprints can then advise them on what the job is and the child can decide whether they fancy doing it. When they reach 14, they can apply for one of the jobs, so Positive Footprints will show them how to apply for a job, how to write a CV, how to get a reference and so on. And if they really fancy that career, they can speak to the company and ask whether they can go and see what it does. In that way, the young person can be aware of what the job involves. That is the right way forward, and I see no reason why the Government should not adopt such a system to show young people what the future holds.

Therese Coffey: I am really impressed by my hon. Friend’s story about the female entrepreneurs, and by the young lady to whom he referred earlier who had decided to do an engineering apprenticeship. Does he agree that it is really important for young people to be made aware of the vast number of opportunities out there, and of the GCSEs and A-levels that will help them to fulfil their potential rather than simply do what they feel they might like to do?

Gordon Birtwistle: I agree entirely. We need to show young people what is available in the big wide world. Unfortunately, the advice that they are being offered at the moment is coming from a narrow band of people in school and from their parents at home. There is far more in this world than what those people know about.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to positive opportunities. Does he agree that it is important not to stereotype young people? For instance, not every engineering job is meant for a male; such jobs also offer opportunities for females. Does he also agree that more such jobs that were at one time thought not to be for females should now be offered to them?

Gordon Birtwistle: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That young lady in Blackpool was an absolute star. She and a group of young people sat round a table with me, and half of those people were young ladies. They were all working at BAE Systems producing Typhoon jets, the finest and fastest jets anywhere in the world. They showed my how they fitted the enormous engines into the aeroplanes and how they wired them up for their missile systems. I was proud of what they did, and I was proud of them for doing it.
	The problem is: can we afford to take these extra measures? I agree with the Government when they say that we have to chop back revenue spending. We have to cut the deficit, but this would be investment spending. We have to invest in the young people of the future. That might cost a little, but we will get a return on that investment year after year. Basically, we cannot afford not to do this. We have to be able to afford to do it; otherwise, our young people will be out of work, our industries will be bereft of quality staff and the skills
	will disappear as older men and women leave their jobs. I asked the biggest company in Burnley about the age profile of its skilled engineers who screw together the thrust reversers that fit on the back of the Trent jet engines that Rolls-Royce makes. I was told that their average age was 47. In another 20 years, those guys will have gone. Who will replace them? At the moment, there are very few people who could do so. We have to get on with it.

Fiona Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same applies to electrical engineering? Dutton’s in Middlewich in my constituency is having to fly in engineers from Europe and Ireland to supplement the skills that it can find here.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. This is happening in every business. It is happening not only in mechanical engineering but in electrical engineering and construction engineering.
	We need to train young people for the future, and that starts with careers advice at school. We need to show young people what is available, what they need to do and how they can get involved with the appropriate industries. The Minister is a young woman and she knows what is going on in the world. I am confident that she will take this on board. I hope that she understands that careers advice for young people is an investment that this Government have to make.

Jonathan Reynolds: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who should be commended for securing the debate. Like him, my interest in these matters stems principally from my role in supporting manufacturing in Parliament, and from the feedback that he and I have received from our meetings on that subject.
	In the current economic climate, in which all sides agree that youth unemployment is still unacceptably high, it follows that the issue we are discussing is of paramount importance. Governments of any political make-up have a duty of care to ensure that young people are given the best possible opportunities. Careers advice in the UK, however, is extremely patchy, often of poor quality and frequently both. The problem has not been improved by some of the reforms that the Government have introduced.
	In the short time available, my aim is to outline the two main areas where I feel careers advice is suffering: first, the fundamental lack of consistency in the offer of careers guidance to students up and down the country; and, secondly, the concerns that I and, I know, many employers have about the quality and standard of careers guidance as it relates to the needs of our economy. I will conclude by offering suggestions about what the Government could do to reverse this worrying trend.
	The first area where I believe problems of careers advice lie is the fact that it is often not delivered. One of the conclusions in the Education Committee’s report, “Careers guidance for young people: the impact of the new duty on schools”, published earlier this year, was:
	“The Government’s decision to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools is regrettable...this has led, predictably, to a drop in the overall level of provision.”
	I understand that more than eight out 10 schools across the country have reduced the careers advice provided to pupils, and that dedicated careers services have frequently been axed.
	In my borough of Tameside, where my constituency is based, Government cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice and guidance services for young people have been fundamentally slashed—first by 65%, and then a year later by a further 50%. The effects are already becoming clear, as a recent study by the Education and Employers Taskforce showed: 12 to 16-year-olds have widely mismatched job ambitions, with a clear lack of understanding of what jobs are out there, of how to get them, and of the pay and expectations that go with them.
	It is clear that this transfer of responsibility has exacerbated a postcode lottery in careers advice, which the Government appear to acknowledge in their response to the Select Committee report, by accepting
	“that some schools are still adjusting to their responsibilities under the new duty”.
	The question we must ask tonight is whether pupils are getting the information they need to make informed career choices. The evidence at the moment says that they are not. This has to change.
	My second point is about the quality and standard of careers advice, particularly with regard to the needs of employers. As a vice-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I hear from many manufacturing companies that feel that young people have little or no understanding of their sector or their employability needs. Those points were vividly illustrated by the hon. Member for Burnley. Only recently, John Cridland told the Government that careers advice is on “life support”, and that not enough was being done to help youngsters in a rapidly changing job market.
	It is important to remember that both pupils and employers suffer. A CBI report recently found that employers felt 55% of school leavers lacked the right work experience, with this being a real problem in the manufacturing industry—an industry that I and many colleagues believe is absolutely vital to this country’s economy.

Mark Menzies: The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Like me, he is passionate about manufacturing. I would like to hear what he would suggest the Government do to bridge the gap between the needs of young people and the needs of employers. With BAE Systems in my constituency, I am passionate about that subject.

Jonathan Reynolds: I would like to see a number of specific things applied to all aspects of career advice. In manufacturing, one of the principal things to change is the perception. I find it incredible that some people still believe that manufacturing is somehow a dirty industry and not the high-tech example that we see in BAE Systems. Challenging gender stereotypes is another highly important issue for manufacturing. What may be harder to achieve is getting it across to people that while BAE Systems and similar companies are important, it is the associated supply chain that really generates the
	wealth and the opportunity for jobs. My constituency predominantly has companies of that sort; it would be valuable if we could get more information out about the success of those companies, particularly in export markets where many are doing very well relative to the rest of the economy.
	I am pleased that the Government have said in response to the Select Committee’s report:
	“Good careers advice should be informed by labour market intelligence…grounded in the realistic context of the needs of today’s employers”.
	I also welcome the commitment that there will be a
	“strengthening of the relationship between the National Careers Service and Local Enterprise Partnerships.”
	However, more action is needed to support such overarching themes and changes. The Government have said that in carrying out the new duties, schools are expected to work in partnership with employers as appropriate. What direct, on-the-ground support does the Minister envisage will be made available to schools to allow that to happen?
	In an economic climate in which jobs are already scare, careers guidance for 12 to 16-year-olds appears to be in emergency care. We often hear about the danger of a lost generation, and the not in education, employment or training figures are unacceptably high. Therefore, high-quality and readily available careers advice, appropriately matched to the needs of our economy, is absolutely vital. All is not lost, however; the Government can do a lot to remedy the situation. They do appear to be listening, and they have accepted that there is more to do, particularly in helping local authorities meet their statutory needs. A more fundamental change of attitude is needed, however, so that careers advice is not seen as an afterthought, but is at the heart of a child’s education—I agreed with the Minister’s heckle on the hon. Member for Burnley, that such advice must begin earlier than the age of 12.
	Schools need more help—both financial help and guidance—from the Government, but it does not necessarily have to be at high cost. Crucially, to raise standards and quality across the board, I believe Ofsted should inspect careers advice in schools. I know that Ofsted have requested that, and the Government are currently reviewing it.
	I hope the Government listen carefully to all that is said in this important debate. I hope that they take on board some of the constructive suggestions, which I hope they will hear. We all want a system that meets both the Government’s objectives and the needs of the employers in our constituencies, and I hope the Government will bring forward further plans to help promote that.

David Rutley: It is an honour to follow distinguished Members from the north-west—it is interesting to note that all those who have contributed to the debate so far, with one honourable exception, have come from the north-west of England, and that shows the enthusiasm and commitment across the House on this vital subject.
	I am delighted to speak in this debate on careers advice. Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I spent most of my career in business. She fully understands the importance of enterprise, initiative and risk taking. I remember the burning passion she expressed in her maiden speech to increase the focus on maths, science
	and technology, and to move them from geek to chic— I agree with that, and I leave it to hon. Members to decide who has been most successful in taking that forward.
	Like the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), I want to focus my remarks on careers in business, in relation to which pupils have historically not been well served by careers advice. One of the key questions children should be asked is, “Hands up, who wants to have a career in business?” In the past, the answer to that question has too often been equivocal; that answer not only shapes the life chances of young people but has a major bearing on the competitiveness of this country. It is absolutely vital that we encourage more pupils to embrace the culture of enterprise and that we signpost that career trajectory for them.
	The days of careers advice being simply a one-to-one meeting between a careers adviser and a pupil in a room somewhere in a school, looking at some book, have long gone. That model is hopelessly out of date, is 20th century in its focus, and fails to notice that young people have embraced new technologies and new approaches to gathering information. I believe passionately that we need to look at completely new models to engage youngsters—practical business engagement projects, which signpost ways into careers, that are relevant to young people and to what needs to happen in the world of business.
	I welcome the Government’s moves to create the National Careers Service and to require schools to secure independent careers guidance on a full range of education and training options It is also right, and critically important, that clear destination measures are published, so that we know the outcomes of such activity. I hope that the destination of many more young people will be a career in manufacturing, enterprise and commerce. Like many others, I await with interest the report of the Ofsted thematic review. I want to see how we can raise ambitions, help people to improve their skills, and raise awareness. We should never be shy of taking on those important tasks.
	Sadly, according to a recent CBI survey, 70 % of employers feel that school leavers do not demonstrate enough business awareness. An Ofsted report on business education, published in June 2011, went further, saying that students taking part in business-related education often had
	“only vague ideas about the economy”.
	That must change.
	In 2012, just 58,000 pupils in England chose to take GCSEs in business studies, whereas 70,000 took GCSEs in drama and nearly 98,000 took them in physical education. Of course, a GCSE in business studies is not the only, and perhaps not even the best, benchmark of business education, but if a dedicated course in business studies is demonstrably not appealing enough to young people, or rigorous enough to be endorsed and recognised in further and higher education, we need to think about how else we might work the thread of business, economics and enterprise into the skills set and the career trajectory.
	It is a sad fact that too many of our students are not particularly likely to be “signposted” into thinking about business skills and the need for a career in business. They are also unlikely to continue their business education
	after graduation. I am glad that the Government have woken up to the idea that it is about time to step up a gear in the global race.
	Australia has just conducted a nationwide consultation on the place of economics and business in a future-orientated school curriculum. It plans to start introducing business and economics themes into formal education at an earlier stage than was suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley, when children are only 10. Australia’s aim is to ensure that the resulting knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs and values encourage students to participate in economic and business activities, so that the country can compete fully in the Pacific rim. I believe that we should take every possible step to improve our own country’s competitiveness on the international stage.
	It is vital that we bring more local business leaders into the classroom to put the case for business and act as positive role models. What we need and want are careers in action, not careers in abstract. Local champions can bring much-needed experience to schools, nurture talent, and excite pupils by showing them what can be achieved and how to set about achieving it. The Federation of Small Businesses has recently been trying to increase by hundreds the number of schools and colleges that engage with businesses, and is encouraging many of its members to become school governors. I believe that its work is vital. Much more can be done in schools to prepare pupils for their future careers in our future economy.
	This is not just about the classroom, however. We need to build on best practice in extra-curricular activities. Exceptional work is being done at All Hallows Catholic college in Macclesfield, where enterprising students in all age groups have been encouraged to set up their own small businesses, face a “Dragons’ Den”-style panel of judges, and engage with local businesses—Manchester United, for one. When finalising their business plans and marketing strategies, they receive input from those businesses. What is more, the profits that they make are put back into the local community, and into the work that is done to support those in India who are needier and more deserving. Those amazing activities have completely changed the culture in the school.
	More businesses need to come forward to engage with schools. Siemens, in nearby Congleton, recently involved local schools in a “rollercoaster challenge” to interest people—particularly young people—in engineering. Competitions such as that are practical ways of making young people think about what they could do with their careers, and about their GCSE choices. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), would be keen to agree that, further south in Cheshire, Bentley is providing fantastic work experience.
	I could move on to talk further about apprenticeships, but time does not permit me to do so. There are so many options that we can bring to bear to help us in this vital task. Winston Churchill wrote in his inspiring book, “My Early Life” that the world was made to be
	“wooed and won by youth.”
	We need to embrace that sentiment in the way we provide careers advice, to help the next generation of business leaders in the UK to be not only highly skilled, but properly advised and fully motivated to improve the nation’s economic competitiveness.

Tristram Hunt: We have had an interesting, if petite, debate. All Members present share a belief in the value of careers guidance, but that might not be shared by the Government Whips Office.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate. He spoke brilliantly and passionately about rebalancing the economy and how that might be undermined by skills shortages, with particular reference to the aerospace industry and the question of a gender divide and the number of young female engineers. I take on board, too, his point about the challenge of providing careers advice in schools. That is why the Opposition thought it was an error to take £200 million out of the previous career connections service, which did not serve to follow the policy through into schools.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) spoke brilliantly about patchy careers advice and the effect that can have. He rightly highlighted the critique provided by the Education Committee, which said it was regrettable that the careers advice function had been moved into schools. He spoke, too, of the axing of dedicated careers services. We have seen that right across the piece, which is why this debate is so important. The Government careers policy is directly opposed to everything the hon. Member for Burnley seeks to put in place to rebalance our economy. My hon. Friend also spoke very well about the mismatching of jobs to ambitions. We should also note the comments of the Government social mobility tsar, Alan Milburn, about young people not doing the right A-levels, and then seeking to go to university with very good grades only to find that they have been poorly advised as to what degree to pursue.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) drew on his career in business to argue strongly for a more business-focused careers guidance, and for getting business advocates into schools. Like us, he is hopeful that the destination measures will provide some degree of clarity. He contrasted the business GCSE with the drama GCSE, but that was a little unfair, I think, as one of the great business strengths of modern Britain is our drama industry—our cinematic and theatrical industries. He was right, however, to urge that business advocacy in schools.
	The Labour party agrees with the Education Committee that independent careers advice and guidance has never been as important for young people as it is today. We also start from the point that this is a question both of social justice and of rebalancing the economy.
	It could be argued that bringing careers guidance into schools has crippled potential pathways to technical and vocational education for many students. While the academic route of following GCSE, A-level and then maybe a degree is clearly understood by many teachers, providing more specific advice about vocational qualifications, traineeships and apprenticeships, and how to marry that with a level 3 qualification, takes real knowledge and understanding of the system, which those who are asked to advise in schools might not possess. If we want greater achievement in our technical and vocational sector, we need to get talent into those quarters. Moreover, it is simply not in the interests of schools to outline alternative routes, and for a
	Conservative-led Government usually so attuned to the threat of producer interest, the allocation of careers advice to schools has been an own goal. Very few schools have the bravery to explain to their pupils the full diversity of further education and vocational pathways while the loss of their pupils’ funding stream is at stake. We recently heard evidence from an excellent teacher from one of the Harris academies, who said, “We bring in outside external guidance and we tell them to tell our pupils that they cannot go to the college up the road. We have no interest in losing those funding streams.” What we then lose as a country is the capacity to go down vocational and technical routes that are more complicated to pursue.
	We are troubled not only by the impartiality aspect, but by issues of funding, insufficient practical guidance, a poorly defined approach to how we share best practice, a capabilities deficit and an accountability regime that is nowhere near robust enough. We look forward to the Ofsted thematic review, which I understand has now been pushed back to September, clarifying some of these issues.
	On funding, the Labour party acknowledges that in the current fiscal climate it is not appropriate to provide additional funding, but the Government should not present the withdrawal of the £200 million that used to fund careers advice as consequence-free. Schools have each faced a £25,000 stealth cut as a result of this money not being transferred along with the statutory duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested, we need to know what actions the Minister is taking to provide guidance and support, and to disseminate best practice. As I understand it, head teachers have to know the names and addresses of CORGI-registered boiler technicians for their schools, but they have no guidance about or lists of qualified careers advisers. Head teachers can fix the boiler but when it comes to their pupils’ careers they are not necessarily given the right amount of information.
	Let me end by returning to the Government’s social mobility adviser, Mr Alan Milburn. He wrote:
	“High-quality information, advice and guidance”—
	on careers—
	“is crucial in helping young people to develop ambitious but achievable plans, which are more likely to lead to positive outcomes.”
	He dedicated his career to improving careers services, raising aspiration and increasing social mobility, yet only this weekend he criticised the Government’s “half-hearted” and incoherent approach in this area. He said:
	“I don’t get the sense that this is sufficiently part of the DNA of what this government is about”.
	I very much hope that the Minister can convince us otherwise, or else we are facing exactly the kind of skills shortage and unbalanced economy that the hon. Member for Burnley so wisely warned us of this evening.

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this debate and on his role as apprenticeship ambassador. He came up from an apprenticeship and succeeded, and that sends a good signal to young people today. I am delighted to speak in this debate. I am sure that hon. Members know that the reason my hon. Friend the
	Under-Secretary of State for Skills is not here is because he is so committed to Department for Business, Innovation and Skills policy that he is trialling shared parental leave.
	I agree with what hon. Members have said about there being a mismatch on skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley pointed out that many businesses are struggling to recruit people with skills in maths, science, technology and engineering, and we have figures suggesting that 23% of businesses have identified skills shortages, particularly in that area. One thing I am passionate about is promoting mathematics, the subject with the highest earnings premium at A-level, at degree level and beyond. One of this Government’s aims is to ensure that within a decade the vast majority of students will be studying the subject to 18. At the moment, this country has the lowest proportion doing so in the OECD. That is a major reason why we do not have enough engineers coming through, either from apprenticeships or at graduate level.
	We know that an hourglass economy is developing across the globe, where higher levels of skills are going to be required of all our people. We need to ensure that students have good advice and as high an aspiration as possible from a very early age. I think it is too late to start this in secondary school; the evidence suggests that many children, especially girls, form clear ideas about the kinds of career they will go into when they are in primary school. It is very important that we see the role of primary teachers as also helping to develop aspirations and broaden horizons. I was pleased recently to speak to the Personal Finance Education Group, which, as well as talking to children about how to manage money, is also keen to talk to them about which careers will lead to the greatest long-term rewards. One thing it is very keen to promote is engineering. I am very pleased that it is going to primary schools to do that.
	We are also revising the new design and technology curriculum so that there is much more of a focus on industrial application, and are working with businesses to ensure that it is flexible and can offer that. I know that many local primaries in my constituency are already doing such work and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) that we need to convince people that they can be chic and geek from an early age, so that more students do such subjects. I think people can be chic and geek now.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) that careers must be at the heart of a school. That is why we have integrated such provision as a core duty for schools. Subject choice and career choice go hand in hand and year after year we have seen too many students closing the doors on careers they could have had by not making subject choices that keep their options open. It is entirely sensible that schools should have that duty. I was at Springwood high school in King’s Lynn on Friday and I saw the provision working well in practice. The school does tremendous research on the local and national jobs market, seeing what careers are available; encourages students to aspire at all levels; works with local employers; and runs visits to universities around the country. Each student has a teacher mentor who ensures that they get good advice all the way through. I do not think that careers advice is a one-off—it is the role of schools to ensure that they do not just talk about future careers
	but encourage students to choose subjects, to try harder and to work at things that will be successful in the future.
	The school has independent advisers, too, and the new destination measures we are introducing give schools a strong incentive in that regard. The best schools, of course, are already doing that. What is most important, however, is something that we have not discussed enough in the debate—that is, the subject choices students make, particularly at the age of 14.
	The Government have introduced the English baccalaureate, which has encouraged more students to study triple science and languages, keeping careers options open. We know that the CBI has said that 72% of businesses want students who study languages. We are also introducing the tech bac from 16 to 18 so that there is a high-value qualification, including level 3 maths and an occupational qualification. There are strong, rigorous options for technical and academic education. We are also introducing a new computing curriculum so that students learn to programme from an early age, which is vital to fill the massive shortage we have in technical occupations.
	Schools have a strong incentive to deliver. I do not think that there was a golden era of careers advice. In fact, Alan Milburn, whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) is fond of quoting, admitted that
	“throughout our work, we have barely heard a good word said about the careers work of the current Connexions service.”
	That was the service provided under the previous Government.
	We have introduced a national careers service, set up by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and given schools a strong role so that they can help students not just with aspirations but with critical things such as subject choice. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools has said that we will consider Ofsted’s thematic review of careers to ensure that we make any changes we have to make. Our aspiration is for every student in this country to use their talents to the maximum and have strong aspirations for the future.

Gordon Birtwistle: My role as apprenticeship ambassador for the Government brought me to believe that we had to do this—[Interruption.] I am not a tsar. Russians are tsars, and I am not a Russian. I will never be a Russian.
	As apprenticeship ambassador, I have met dozens of young people and I can only say that I am immensely proud of them. They are leading this country into the future. A young lady at Blackpool was told that she was too clever to be an engineer and that she should be a doctor or a solicitor, and her parents did not speak to her for a month when she went to BAE Systems. That young lady epitomises what we should have. She is top of the pile.
	Speaking to those young people made me believe that we need to invest in them. We need to invest in the careers advice they need. That is not a waste of money—it is good for the country and good for social returns. For
	many years, it will give this country the people to drive us on in a secure future with a rebalanced economy. Let us get on with it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of careers advice in schools for 12 to 16 year olds.

Business without Debate

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),
	That this House agrees with the Report [19 June] of the Liaison Committee.—(Mr Evennett.)

Delegated Legislation
	 — 
	Water Industry

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),
	That the draft Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Education

That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Second Key Stage) (England) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 May, be approved.— (Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 26 June (Standing order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Referral Fees) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)),

Dangerous Drugs

That the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1294), dated 3 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.— (Mr Evennett.).
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 26 June:
	(1) notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to Amendment of private business standing orders may be taken at the time of public business;
	(2) proceedings on that motion and on the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to electronic deposit of documents for High Speed 2 Hybrid Bill may continue, though opposed, for up to one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such motion;
	(3) the Speaker shall put the Questions on the motion relating to electronic deposit of documents for High Speed 2 Hybrid Bill forthwith following the decision of the House on the motion relating to amendment of private business standing orders, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
	(4) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Evennett.)

PETITION
	 — 
	National Railway Museum

Hugh Bayley: On Friday, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I were presented with this massive petition about the National Railway museum in York, which is quite simply the world’s best railway museum. If you want to see the original engineering drawings by George Stephenson for the Rocket, they are there; if you want to see the engine that 75 years ago set the steam engine world speed record, the Mallard, it is there. The petition is signed by Steve Hughes, editor of The Press, York’s daily newspaper, and 13,500 other people from the City of York.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Steve Hughes, Editor of “The Press” York and the people of York,
	Declares that the Petitioners note with concern that the National Railway Museum, one of the most treasured attractions in York and the UK, and one of the world's best transport museums, is threatened with closure.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the National Railway Museum remains open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001185]

POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Mr Speaker: Twenty-six years and 13 days after his original election, I call Mr Keith Vaz.

Keith Vaz: I had no idea you were keeping count so very carefully, Mr Speaker, but thank you for reminding me.
	I am delighted to be able to raise the issue of police and crime commissioner accountability on the Floor of the House tonight. I am pleased to see the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice here to answer the debate, having appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs only last week.
	On 15 November 2012, 41 police and crime commissioners were elected, representing a total population of 48 million and covering individual populations of up to 2.6 million people, earning salaries of between £65,000 and £117,000 a year, and between them controlling billions of pounds of spending on police in England and Wales. Since 2010, the Home Secretary has embarked on what can only be described as a revolution in policing: whole organisations have been changed, some have been abolished, some merged, and others are at this moment in a state of limbo. Names that we have become used to, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and police authorities, have been or will be replaced by the College of Policing, the National Crime Agency and 41 elected police and crime commissioners. The police commissioners were introduced to bring a democratic element into the new landscape of policing. I fully support the vision behind them, which is one of the democratic accountability of our police service.
	Allegations today that undercover officers spied on the Lawrence family are just one of a number of recent events in policing that have shown why this new element of democratic accountability is vital to the landscape of policing. In creating the commissioners, the Home Secretary was seeking to construct a new and better, more accountable policing edifice. However, it has become clear that there may be a number of structural faults, and if these are not addressed quickly, this gleaming new building will collapse.
	The birth of the commissioners was a long and difficult one. The original election date had to be changed, voters did not receive a formal election mailing—they were asked to look at websites—and there was a record low turnout. In Devon and Cornwall, Commissioner Tony Hogg was elected by only 5% of the electorate. In Wales, at a Newport polling station, not a single vote was cast. The commissioners are a new breed, although some of them are known to us. Six commissioners are former Members of Parliament, including Alun Michael from South Wales, Jane Kennedy from Merseyside, Paddy Tipping from Nottinghamshire, Vera Baird from Northumbria, Sir Graham Bright from Cambridgeshire, and Tony Lloyd from Greater Manchester.
	Subsequent to their election, the first actions of some commissioners were to make appointments to their offices, which vary hugely in size, from 40 staff in Tony Lloyd’s Greater Manchester office to just four in
	Vera Baird’s office in Northumbria. There are 16 Conservative, 13 Labour and 12 independent police commissioners. The House will know that there has been much controversy over political appointments. The Committee heard from the West Yorkshire commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, for example, who appointed the wife of his party’s regional director in Yorkshire and Humberside, who oversaw his selection, to become his deputy on a salary of £53,000. Both the Labour West Midlands commissioner, Bob Jones, and the Conservative Northamptonshire commissioner, Adam Simmonds, made political appointments to the post of assistant commissioner.
	Not a week has passed without articles in newspapers about the activities of some commissioners, and I shall give just four examples. Newspapers reported that three police officers were arrested after allegedly leaking details of Cumbrian Commissioner Richard Rhodes’s undeclared expenses to the press. Richard Rhodes has written to my Committee to clarify the position, and we have published his letter on our website. The Mail on Sunday ran a splash raising questions about the office of the Thames Valley commissioner, Anthony Stansfeld, who is the Prime Minister’s local commissioner. Last week, the Watford Observer said that in April alone, in his capacity as Hertfordshire commissioner, David Lloyd accepted hospitality with outsourcing companies Serco and Capgemini. It was also revealed by the newspapers that the Surrey commissioner, Kevin Hurley, ran a private security firm, and it was claimed that that was a conflict of interest. Mr Hurley denies that. The House and the public need to decide if that is just press speculation or something more serious reflecting general unease about the activities of some commissioners.
	So much is not known about the commissioners that the Select Committee decided to produce a report to set out all the issues and to provide an easy way to refer to what the commissioners were doing, effectively creating a central register of interests. I want to thank Richard Benwell for his hard work on the Committee’s register. Our report was prompted by a lack of transparency: the fact that the Government refused to collate such a register themselves led to our decision to produce one.
	In May 2013, four commissioners had still not published the required budget data online: Humberside’s Matthew Grove; Norfolk’s Stephen Bett; North Wales’s Winston Roddick; and Suffolk’s Tim Passmore. Twenty-three commissioners have yet to publish the full statutory information required.
	Despite the permanent secretary telling the Committee on Tuesday that he had e-mailed his own staff saying that the Home Office needs to be much more transparent, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has refused to disclose details of meetings that have taken place between the Home Office and commissioners. His excuse was that it was on the website, yet he answered in full a similar question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on 12 December. Ministers need to be open and transparent with Members of the House when they ask questions about police and crime commissioners, rather than referring them to Home Office websites.
	Transparency is vital to allow a full and fair analysis of the momentous decisions that some of the commissioners have to make. The biggest power they wield is the ability
	to hire and fire chief constables. This month Gwent’s commissioner, Ian Johnston, apparently forced the chief constable of Gwent, Carmel Napier, to retire. The reason he cited was that she was hostile to the idea of commissioners and their relationship was “never going to work.” We hope to hear from both the Gwent Commissioner and the former chief constable at the Committee in the near future. In Lincolnshire Commissioner Alan Hardwick’s suspension of Chief Constable Rhodes was later reversed by a High Court judge, who called it “irrational and perverse.” Ten chief constables have resigned or retired since November 2012.
	The police and crime panels are meant to hold commissioners to account on all these issues. They are the only groups standing between commissioners and a four-year period in which they can, in effect, do whatever they like. However, as soon as the cold light of scrutiny was shone on them by the Committee, we found that these panels were often compromised by political allegiances, and some lacked the guidance, legal advice and legal powers that they required. The Kent police and crime panel never scrutinised Commissioner Anne Barnes’s decision to appoint a youth and crime commissioner on a salary of £15,000. Gwent’s commissioner, Ian Johnston, admitted to a group of Labour Gwent MPs that until the details of his meeting with Chief Constable Napier were leaked, he had had no intention of informing the panel of the full details of her departure.
	The Lincolnshire police and crime panel did not meet for two months to discuss the suspension of Chief Constable Rhodes. The panel chairman told the Committee that it received poor and confused legal advice and in the end the chairman had to write to the Minister asking what to do. Just a few days after appearing before the Committee, Lincolnshire’s panel chair, Councillor Ray Wootten, resigned after “inadvertently misleading” the Committee. Apparently it was he who was confused, not the legal advice that he had been given. He and the other panel chairs we heard from, Councillor Patricia O’Brien in Suffolk and Councillor Peter Box, issued a plea that the Home Secretary had left them alone in their mammoth scrutiny task and they needed more help and support to achieve proper scrutiny.
	The situation is so serious that Sir Hugh Orde, one of the country’s most distinguished police officers and the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has branded the system for holding commissioners to account
	“the worst system you can possibly have”
	and demanded a meeting between chief constables and the Home Secretary—an astonishing statement from someone as senior as Sir Hugh, and a statement that I hope the Government will listen to. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell the House when and where this meeting between Sir Hugh and the Home Secretary will take place. I hope he will not refer me to a website.
	London’s own police and crime commissioner, Mayor Boris Johnson, and his relationship with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan commissioner, is proof that with proper scrutiny, the system can work. We can also look to Leicestershire, where Commissioner Sir Clive Loader and Chief Constable Simon Cole get on very well indeed. We want to see relationships like this replicated across the country.
	Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, recently told the Committee that he thought there was scope for the inspectorate to have a greater role in the new landscape. HMIC should take over publication of the central register of interests started by the Committee, as well as the register of chief constables’ interests, which still does not have a home. The chief executive of the College of Policing, Alex Marshall, should ensure that police and crime panels have a representative on the college’s board, and indeed the college should provide them with training, guidance and legal advice.
	As the level 2 transfer deadline approaches, some commissioners will choose to take over important matters such as procurement. The Home Secretary has said that she is looking at commissioners taking over 999 contracts, including for ambulance and fire services, which is a most interesting idea.
	A number of these issues would never have arisen in the first place if the Government had done as the Select Committee recommended in our report on the new landscape of policing published earlier this year, in which we suggested the introduction of a “Magna Carta”. This would be an agreed document, signed by police and crime commissioners and chief constables, setting out the rights and responsibilities of the various parties.
	There is unquestionably a very important role for commissioners in the new landscape. I want to pay tribute to the work that many of them do; it is no easy task to take the first steps in a completely new and important area of policy. The police need to be accountable to the taxpayer for the money they spend, the priorities they choose and, indeed, the mistakes they make. However, we must ensure that there is a sound process in place for making commissioners accountable. After all, we will have to wait another three and a half years until the next election, and nothing can be done until then. That is why my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee have agreed to conduct a major inquiry into commissioners on the anniversary of their elections. We want the public to have their say on this important issue. If the police commissioners are to assume their place as the bedrock of more transparent and accountable policing in the Home Secretary’s new landscape, we must get the process right, and we must get it right now.

Damian Green: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate and am grateful for his support for the Government’s vision of a more accountable police service. He made the standard disobliging remarks about turnout at the elections, but I should point out that 5 million people voted, which is approximately 5 million more than the number who elected anyone who sat on a police authority.
	The police and crime commissioners have been in office for six and a half months, and in that relatively short time they have made a significant impact. Crime has fallen by more than 10% under this Government and has continued to fall since the PCCs were elected, against the challenging economic climate. PCCs not only represent the most significant democratic reform of policing we have seen; they are also proving to be central figures in helping to cut crime. In the past
	six months all the PCCs have published their police and crime plans and engaged with the public in a way that police authorities did not, and indeed could not. PCCs have made pledges and put in place measures to improve services offered to victims and to protect the vulnerable from those who would prey on them.
	The right hon. Gentleman listed a series of newspaper articles criticising PCCs and said that they were appearing almost weekly. I merely observe that articles that are critical of Members of this House appear almost daily, but that does not mean that parliamentary democracy is a bad thing. Newspapers are there to criticise, and elected representatives are there to defend their position.
	I am genuinely puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s objection to looking up information on websites. The internet is common these days and many can access it; it is the easiest way for the public to access information. He is as capable as anyone in the country of accessing information on a website.

Keith Vaz: When a Member of Parliament asks a question of a Minister about when they have a meeting with a police and crime commissioner, the Minister should answer the question rather than saying, “Wait until it is published in three months’ time”. That is my point. I have no problem in accessing the internet.

Damian Green: I am delighted to hear it. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman at the Select Committee last week, this Government are the most transparent ever. Previous Governments, including the Government of whom he was a leading and distinguished member, did not routinely publish the meetings their Ministers had in the way that my ministerial colleagues and I do.
	I do not accept at all the right hon. Gentleman’s implication or accusation that the Government are in any way trying to hide information about meetings. Indeed, as he pointed out, I replied in some detail to the shadow Policing Minister about a meeting I had with police commissioners. Any imputation that such meetings are covered up is factually inaccurate.
	As a result of the arrival of police and crime commissioners, we are seeing the development of innovative and challenging thinking that cuts to the heart of crime reduction and prevention in our communities. That thinking is the work of a disparate group of individuals who are nevertheless united in their commitment to a single goal that cuts across party politics or ideological leanings—that of cutting crime, reducing the harm that comes to our citizens from those who would wish to do them harm, and making our streets and communities safer places to live.
	Those innovations, brought about by the police and crime commissioners, can be split into three broad groups: challenging the criminal justice system to deliver for victims and the vulnerable; challenging local partners to play their part in cutting crime; and challenging forces to drive the changes needed to ensure that front-line services are maintained and improved.
	Let me illustrate some of the ideas being brought to life. In the first group, we see examples such as Martyn Underhill, the independent PCC for Dorset, who is developing a victims bureau where victims are supported throughout their journey through the criminal justice system by a single point of contact. Another example is
	Shaun Wright, Labour PCC for South Yorkshire, who is allocating extra funding to assist the work to prevent child sexual exploitation.
	In the second group, Matthew Ellis, the Conservative PCC from Staffordshire, has focused on the interaction between the police and those with mental health issues. He is looking at how officers can reduce the time spent with such individuals, without compromising the service to those who need it. Sue Mountstevens, the independent PCC from Avon and Somerset, is establishing a business crime forum for business leaders to provide input into policing best practice on such areas as CCTV security, security staff and joint initiatives. That will be coupled with prevention work with communities and schools.
	In the third group, we are seeing PCCs challenge forces to drive essential changes. PCCs of all kinds are looking at how the police can work more closely with the fire service. Sir Graham Bright, the Conservative PCC from Cambridgeshire, has begun work to exploit better the existing IT systems to provide the opportunity to automate and improve the flow of information across the force. That work is designed to get key information to the officer on the beat when they need it and provides the opportunity for the public to access the police quickly through digital means.
	Such innovations have not come about by accident, but by design on the part of the individual PCCs. That is a direct result of the Government achieving what they set out to do all along with the introduction of PCCs—to shift accountability away from Whitehall into the hands of locally elected representatives, who understand the needs and the priorities of the people in their areas far better than policy makers in Whitehall ever could.
	The right hon. Gentleman implied that some kind of accountability gap is developing between Whitehall and PCCs. That is not the case. This Government have given serious thought to how we can improve the accountability of the entirety of policing, not just the leadership, and that is why we are seeing improvements in the information that is available to the public. In the case of PCCs, the Home Secretary rightly retains backstop powers that we do not envisage using, but the day-to-day management, governance and oversight of the forces has transferred into the hands of PCCs. The legislation that underpins PCCs is enabling legislation, not preventive legislation. The supposed accountability gap is a fiction created by people who cannot bear to see the transference of accountability away from Whitehall, where it was held for so long—indeed, for too long. The truth of the matter is that what we have seen demonstrates that we were right all along. The challenges and, indeed, controversies that we are seeing are the product of PCCs doing the job they have been elected to do.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly made a point about the availability of information. I share his desire for increasing transparency. We are working towards ensuring that key elements of the information required by legislation are published on the national police.uk website. We are confident that this will enable the public even better to access easily the information they need to hold their PCC to account. Under the specified information order, PCCs have to publish a register of interests, including every pecuniary interest or other paid interest, budgets, contracts and tenders, senior salaries, expenses, and key
	decisions. We have been clear that it is not the role of central Government to establish and maintain a national register of interests. This is not co-ordinated because the public want to hold their own local PCC, and not all 41 PCCs, to account.
	Significant structures and safeguards are in place to ensure that PCCs are able to fulfil the role that the Government intended for them. PCCs already benefit from appropriate checks and balances, as befits their status as democratically elected individuals, through locally elected councillors with strong powers to question the PCC, through the statutory framework that underpins the office of PCC, and ultimately, of course, at the ballot box. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, PCCs work every day in the full gaze and scrutiny of the media.
	Specific safeguards include the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which brought PCCs into being. That is enhanced by the Policing Protocol Order 2011, a document that has been commended in the House of Lords for its ease of comprehension. These documents clearly set out the powers that police and crime panels have to provide supportive scrutiny to their relevant PCCs. Those powers include, but are not limited to, the power to ensure that the appointment of a chief constable is subject to the scrutiny and the potential veto of the panel; the power to ensure that the dismissal of a chief constable is open to proper scrutiny and follows clear procedure; and the power to require that information held by the PCC is made available to the panel and therefore to the public.
	If there have been failings in the system—the failings that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—they may be the result of chairs of panels, and panels themselves, having a lack of understanding of the powers they hold and the role they fulfil. We are confident that panels have the powers they need to fulfil their scrutiny roles. He mentioned the incidents in Lincolnshire. As he knows, the chairman of the panel there wrote to the Home Office asking for advice about whether he could hold a scrutiny meeting. I wrote back to him saying that he could, and he chose to ignore that advice. With the best will in the world, there is not a lot more that the Policing Minister can do when asked for advice than to give it, and if the chair of the panel—former chair; he has subsequently left the job—chooses to ignore it, that is a matter for him.
	The protocol is explicit:
	“At all times the Chief Constable, their constables and staff, remain operationally independent in the service of the communities that they serve.”
	That could not be clearer. Regardless of which PCC is in office, the police have the discretion to use their judgment when deciding who to investigate or arrest, and must by law be wholly without influence of the PCC.
	There have been several high-profile cases where the performance of the chief constable has been challenged by the PCC. That is a positive symptom of the shift in accountability from Whitehall to PCCs. It is right that the role of chief constable and the post-holder are open to challenge, and that PCCs have the mandate to challenge them on behalf of the people they represent. It would be a disservice to PCCs and chief constables, who are professionals, to suggest that they would be unable to maintain a professional and productive working relationship having come through any such challenge.
	There has been criticism of the size and structure of the offices of PCCs. Indeed, we have heard some tonight from the right hon. Gentleman. There are significant variations. In the examples that he gave, that is partly because of the difference in size between Greater Manchester and Northumbria. However, PCCs have the mandate and the knowledge to determine what is needed to carry out their remit. Who else is better placed to judge that? Equally importantly, all information regarding the offices of PCCs is available to the public, so people will be able to take into account the value for money that their PCC has delivered when they next cast their vote. That is also true of the appointment of deputies and other figures who support the PCC in their duties. Whether those appointments are appropriate or necessary is not for me to say; it is for the public to judge at the ballot box.
	PCCs have been complying with the requirements that we made on them to be transparent. The Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 requires PCCs to publish key information. That includes
	a register of interests that must include all other pecuniary or paid interests, expenses, budgets, contracts and tenders, senior salaries, and key decisions. The intention is for the public to use that information to hold PCCs to account. I would contrast that with the situation that used to obtain with police authorities.
	Police and crime commissioners are doing much that all Members of every party can be proud of. Those actions are a function of the shift in accountability from Whitehall to PCCs. The innovation and ambition in PCCs’ plans for their areas are testimony to their dedication to the role, their commitment to the people of their areas and their desire to make a real change, which is precisely what is happening. It is evident to me that PCCs are doing exactly what Parliament had intended and many of them are doing it extremely well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.